From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: aoliva@redhat.com
To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>, Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 11:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <or8zh21hrk.fsf@feijoada.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0108011301040.3036-100000@taygeta.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00127.html

On Aug  2, 2001, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> [ Includes patch. Okay for branch and mainline? ]
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Yes, I've been working on this now.  To be honest, I don't have time to
>> do this, but I'll try to have something in time for 3.0.1 -- somehow.

> So, here we go. (The first column is the value of PARAM_MAX_INLINE_INSNS.)

> To me, 600 seems like a definite and affordable improvement here

Great!  Thanks for doing this.

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.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me