From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13951 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2003 12:09:58 -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 13943 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2003 12:09:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx01.uni-tuebingen.de) (134.2.3.11) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2003 12:09:55 -0000 Received: from bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.170.113]) by mx01.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3NC9p2L019552; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:09:51 +0200 Received: from bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h3NC6VAw031837; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:06:31 +0200 Received: from localhost (rguenth@localhost) by bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id h3NC6VZq031834; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:06:31 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de: rguenth owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:07:00 -0000 From: Richard Guenther To: Steven Bosscher cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Mark Mitchell Subject: Re: PR 10196 / Re: Inliner parameters In-Reply-To: <1051098883.2501.5.camel@steven> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.0.0.8; AVE 6.19.0.3; VDF 6.19.0.8 X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01144.txt.bz2 On 23 Apr 2003, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Op wo 23-04-2003, om 13:36 schreef Richard Guenther: > > > > which is _a lot_ better, but still a 19% regression for -fno-exceptions > > and a 22% regression for -fexceptions. But as these numbers are below > > 30%, we can now downgrade the priority of the PR? > > Part of that 30% can probably be explained with PR 8361, but inlining > still is slower, and there should be a PR for that, I think. > > So I propose we close PR 10316, and we either close 10196 and open a new > PR for the inliner slowdown, or we leave 10196 open with a remark in the > audit trail. Does that sound OK to you? I assumed the inliner slowdown was resolved by marks first patch (a month ago), and now the EH problem was solved. I propose to close the PR, as the audit trail is already quite huge. I'll check the EH/inliner problems seperately again and open two PRs tracking them separately, if necessary. Richard. -- Richard Guenther WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/