--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 11:06 ---
On x86_64-linux at -O3 with channel.f90 I get:
Deciding on smaller functions:
Considering inline candidate ddx.
Considering inline candidate ddy.
Considering ddx with 77 insns
to be inlined into sw
Estimated growth
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 11:19 ---
Probably because the other doubly-nested loop bodies inside that loop are
considered way more hot. Does using profile-feedback help?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 11:45 ---
All bb's in MAIN__ have frequency = 0, must be a bug in predict.c...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38074
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-28 12:56 ---
One bug is IMHO in compute_call_stmt_bb_frequency, what it does doesn't make
any sense, as the condition in ?: is never true.
I guess
--- cgraphbuild.c.jj42008-10-23 13:21:39.0 +0200
+++
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target Milestone|---
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 20:21 ---
I don't see how there can be a connection to the IRA merge.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38074
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-11-11 20:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] missed inlining since IRA merge on Core2 Duo
I don't see how there can be a connection to the IRA merge.
I don't see either, but the behavior changed between Aug 23 and
Sep 2. At
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-11 21:18 ---
There were many changes, mainly from Jan, in that time range that could have
caused it. The most likely thing I'd say is that the basic blocks where those
functions are called are considered by gcc to be cold and
