From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Buck To: aoliva@redhat.com Cc: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell), pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac dot@(Gerald Pfeifer), jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck), gcc@gcc.gnu.org (gcc@gcc.gnu.org), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org (gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org) Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 12:37:00 -0000 Message-id: <200108021935.MAA19867@racerx.synopsys.com> References: X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00134.html Alexandre: > >> But I wonder if the default value of PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS should be > >> a property of the target machine. Different targets have different > >> INSN densities. I don't know how much this changes from one target to > >> another in the early rtl stages used for rtl inlining, though... Does > >> anyone more experienced think it would be worth the trouble? I could > >> produce a patch to make the default target-modifiable. Mark: > > I think we're tackling this from the wrong angle. Alexandre: > I think I wasn't clear. My suggestion didn't mean to affect compile > time, but rather, to offer a reasonably similar behavior across > multiple targets, in regards to inlining or not inlining functions. But you're assuming that the current heuristic approach to inlining is valid and only the parameter needs adjustment, and proposing a theory about how it should be adjusted (normalize for instruction density) without evidence that this is the right thing.