From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 856 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2002 08:34:14 -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 846 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2002 08:34:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.130.111.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2002 08:34:12 -0000 Received: from naos (naos [128.130.111.28]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3M8Y6W06301; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:34:08 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:47:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Michel LESPINASSE cc: gcc list Subject: Re: GCC performance regression - up to 20% ? In-Reply-To: <20020421005718.GA16378@zoy.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01073.txt.bz2 On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Michel LESPINASSE wrote: > One thing I noticed is that 3.1 snapshot produces less inlining than 3.0 > or 2.95. There is a difference between 3.0/3.0.1/3.0.2 and the one hand, and 3.0.3/3.0.4 on the other hand. GCC 3.0-3.0.2 were so bad with respect to compile-time and memory consumption that the inlining strategy was changed for 3.0.3 (and mainline, which is now becoming 3.1). The new strategy should be more or less equivalent in most cases, but if you are seeing significant differences, this issue needs to be revisited. Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/