From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11304 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2003 13:14:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11266 invoked by uid 48); 16 Apr 2003 13:14:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:14:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030416131439.11265.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: china@thewrittenword.com, ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, vmakarov@gcc.gnu.org From: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org, china@thewrittenword.com, ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, vmakarov@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/10160: [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: [3.3/3.4 regression][SPARC] compile time regression; inordinate time spent in "scheduling" Responsible-Changed-From-To: vmakarov->ebotcazou Responsible-Changed-By: ebotcazou Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Apr 16 13:14:39 2003 Responsible-Changed-Why: Hum... I don't think that the scheduler is to be blamed here, rather the tree inliner: cutting the inlining limit by 10 (-finline-limit=60) brings the compile time on par with that of the 3.2.x branch. The new logic of the tree inliner is not exactly adapted to this testcase. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10160