From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Mitchell To: jamie.lokier@cern.ch Cc: martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de, n@pcep-jamie.cern.ch, osken393@student.liu.se, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Inlining Improvements Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 23:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19991221085303O.mitchell@codesourcery.com> References: <199912211254.NAA14067@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> <19991221170444.B10482@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> X-SW-Source: 1999-12n/msg00443.html Message-ID: <19991231235400.8Oui7FCYUC1XbkoePGRivL9FtSwpW2ltaqBGTYQ0V8M@z> >>>>> "Jamie" == Jamie Lokier writes: Jamie> So we have a situation where the C++ compiler generates Jamie> better code than the C compiler from the same source? Jamie> Are there plans to add the tree inlining to C any time Jamie> soon? We (CodeSourcerY) don't have any such plans, although we're actively encouraging customers to do that work. I believe that Cygnus is working on moving some of the function-at-a-time work which is a necessary prerequisite for the new inliner, into language-independent code. I'm actually quite surprised that the tree-based inlining has made as much a difference (in the quality of the generated code) as it has in some cases. Some MIPS benchmarks one of our customers had now run twice as quickly -- somehow, the new inliner is making it easier for the back-end to do its job, at least in some situations. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com