--- Comment #35 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:32 ---
If your discussions are only slightly related to this bug and don't affect -Os,
then why are you having that discussion here?
Anyway. If this is WONTFIX for GCC 4.5, then it should be marked as such
(remove "4.5 reg
--- Comment #34 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #33 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:09 ---
Steven, please note that this PR was proposed WONTFIX for 4.5 already in
comment #15. The discussion after that was about something that is only
slightly related to this bug, something that wouldn't actually affect th
--- Comment #32 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-06 11:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
> I think it is a really, really bad signal if a bug like this, where the
> revision that introduced the issue was identified >9 months ago,
--- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-04-06 11:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 10:56
> ---
--- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 10:56 ---
I think it is a really, really bad signal if a bug like this, where the
revision that introduced the issue was identified >9 months ago, remains
unfixed for GCC 4.5.
I, for one, wouldn't care hunting down revisions
--- Comment #29 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-06 10:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
> I don't think we should fix the double-accounting bug for the 4.5 series,
> when we tried it on SPEC it caused several regression, meaning
--- Comment #28 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 10:34 ---
I don't think we should fix the double-accounting bug for the 4.5 series,
when we tried it on SPEC it caused several regression, meaning we would need
much more fine-tuning. We have time for that for 4.6.
--
http
--- Comment #27 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-03 21:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
And after checking the code, I think it is correct. I.e. limit is computed on
size before inlining of caller or callee (this is to allow lar
--- Comment #26 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-03 21:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
As for history, I oriignally had only the perentage limits at place, but then
found that they behave really erratically on small units and s
--- Comment #25 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-03 21:19 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
> But the the code as-is allows unlimited growth of a function (well,
> by PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH for each inlining; the limit is
> bas
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-04-03 21:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #23 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-03 21:02 ---
> Subject: Re: [4.
--- Comment #23 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-03 21:02 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
> 1) overall_size is reduced twice for the same function, once in
>cgraph_clone_inlined_nodes, once in cgraph_mark_inline_edge (which ca
--- Comment #21 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 17:30 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
> > I think I saw one but it was wrong. I would be interested to at least know
> > what this patch is about :)
>
> It's about not accounti
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-03-28 17:00 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 16:56 ---
> Subject: Re: [4
--- Comment #19 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 16:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
> > > There is also some miscounting of overall unit size, Micha has a patch for
> > > that (but it completely chokes tramp3d results). The
--- Comment #18 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-03-28 16:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
> --- Comment #17 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 16:33 ---
> Subject: Re: [4
--- Comment #17 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-03-28 16:33 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size
regression caused by r147852
> Indeed.
>
> There is also some miscounting of overall unit size, Micha has a patch for
> that (but it completely chokes tramp3d results).
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-28 15:46
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I've been discussing this on IRC a while ago with Richard Guenther, but forgot
> to add a record.
>
> It seems that for 4.5, it is best to leave inlining heruistics as it is. THe
> cod
--- Comment #15 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-07 20:37
---
I've been discussing this on IRC a while ago with Richard Guenther, but forgot
to add a record.
It seems that for 4.5, it is best to leave inlining heruistics as it is. THe
code size regression come mainly from b
--- Comment #14 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-09 17:09 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I am just re-testing it on vangelis with size
> estimates ignoring it.
Honza - Any updates on this ?
Ramana
>
> Honza
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #13 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-07-02 10:10 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
OK, on i386 it has some effect according to our nightly tester
it is 3524421->3510754. The size used to be as low as 3431090
so it is just small im
--- Comment #12 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-01 05:41 ---
Yes, at -Os.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-06-30 23:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
> I see no effect whatsoever of the patch for for CSiBE on arm-elf-unknown.
At -Os?
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #10 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 19:55 ---
I see no effect whatsoever of the patch for for CSiBE on arm-elf-unknown.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 13:41 ---
I can schedule it for nightly testing today, but if you have easier setup for
CSiBE, it would help :)
Thanks!
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 13:14 ---
Honza, I can take care of the CSiBE run if you want.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #7 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2009-06-30 12:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
> The problem is that early inliner allows to increase code size estimate by
> inlining single function by up to 12 instructions. This is higher tha
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-30 12:44 ---
Created an attachment (id=18100)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18100&action=view)
Proposed patch
The problem is that early inliner allows to increase code size estimate by
inlining single funct
--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 23:14 ---
The difference essentially is because all functions getting inlined into
BZ2_Compress_Block with the newer heuristics.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #4 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-19 00:00 ---
Confirmed that the problem exists.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--
rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|major |normal
Keywords||missed-optimi
--- Comment #3 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:10
---
For ARM -Os 114 files in CSiBE increase in size (total increase 21449 bytes)
20 files decrease in size (total decreases 1039 bytes); over all increase 20410
bytes)
Worst single increase is from bzip2/compress (inc
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 23:07 ---
Hmm, the measurements are most likely on x86 which might have slight
differences when it comes to code size differences than arm.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 22:51 ---
*** Bug 40437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436
38 matches
Mail list logo
