https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
--- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Federico Fissore from comment #8)
> I forgot to say: this result came out of avr-gcc 4.8.1 (packaged by Arduino:
> it's a 4.8.1 with two small patches applied [1]). It uses -Os optimization
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
--- Comment #8 from Federico Fissore federico at fsfe dot org ---
I forgot to say: this result came out of avr-gcc 4.8.1 (packaged by Arduino:
it's a 4.8.1 with two small patches applied [1]). It uses -Os optimization flag
[1]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
Federico Fissore federico at fsfe dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federico at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-10
20:19:24 UTC ---
Hi,
I have reservations for making inline heuristics too target specific as it
would increase the testing matrix of inliner even more. It is difficult to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629
--- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-10
20:52:18 UTC ---
OK, at -Os the issue is that function is called once so inlining is a win.
Making multiple copies of it leads to GCC making clone:
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-29 20:10 ---
There is a dup for this somewhere ... on pretty-ipa branch the call cost is 3.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-26 15:38 ---
GCC inline heuristics are just that: heuristics. They are not optimal for all
targets but only for those targets that they have been tuned for.
For AVR, nobody ever tuned the heuristics, despite several suggestions
--- Comment #2 from forwards dot from dot bugzilla at d81 dot de
2008-12-26 21:29 ---
Steven, thanks for your explanation. My point of view was that gcc-4.3.3 did do
inlining code for -Os, -O1, -O2 although the manual clearly states that
it would not do inlining for these optimization
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-26 21:35 ---
set_param_value (inline-call-cost, 5);
This might be too high, the default for -O2/-O3 is 12. That might be the real
issue.
Also -O2/-Os for 3.4 and above did the same inlining of static functions that
4.3
11 matches
Mail list logo
