From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31362 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2003 11:12:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31354 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2003 11:12:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.31.123) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2003 11:12:35 -0000 Received: by atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 4018) id C5F044C02E1; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:12:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:04:00 -0000 From: Jan Hubicka To: Scott Robert Ladd Cc: Jan Hubicka , Gerald Pfeifer , Joe Buck , Mike Stump , Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: On inlining in C++ with unit-at-a-time code Message-ID: <20030815111234.GB29452@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20030804093143.A24974@synopsys.com> <8380D110-C708-11D7-A9D4-003065A77310@apple.com> <20030805182353.C27614@synopsys.com> <20030807131134.GB3396@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <3F33B5E6.7030803@coyotegulch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F33B5E6.7030803@coyotegulch.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00976.txt.bz2 > Jan Hubicka wrote: > >So please if you complain about the inlining decisions, can you, please > >try -O2 -funit-at-a-time --param max-insns-inline-single=500 --param > >max-insns-inline-auto=150 and send me a testcases in case it won't do > >what do you want? (if it inlines way too much, please try to lower the > >inline-single limit to 150 again, I didn't do much testing with > >inline-single limit set so high) > > Am I correct that -funit-at-a-time and --param max-insns-inline-* came > came into existence with the advent of 3.4? > > While I follow this list closely, are there any other "new" optimization > options I should be considering when testing 3.4? -funit-at-a-time is new optimization and it is on by default at -O3 now. max-inline-insns came in earlier but have somewhat different meaning as the idea of instruction used to be number of statements * 10 and now it is size of the syntactic tree with noop nodes ignored and some expensive nodes thread specially. I think I've misspelled the option in orignal email tought. Honza > > > -- > Scott Robert Ladd > Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) > Software Invention for High-Performance Computing