http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #13 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-10
20:10:51 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Nov 10 20:10:46 2010
New Revision: 166553
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=166553
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-10
20:23:12 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Nov 10 20:23:09 2010
New Revision: 166555
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=166555
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #15 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-10
20:26:39 UTC ---
Author: hubicka
Date: Wed Nov 10 20:26:36 2010
New Revision: 166556
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=166556
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #16 from Zeev Tarantov zeev.tarantov at gmail dot com 2010-11-11
00:42:57 UTC ---
In
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi?r1=166555r2=166554pathrev=166555:
+will be shared acroess multiple compilation units. The
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #11 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-04
17:32:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 22284
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22284
Patch I am testing
Hi,
this patch makes size metric more realistic in two
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-04
04:44:30 UTC ---
- we need to improve heuristics to figure out that inlining is smaller than
call sequence (if it really is)
Well, we can't do that here. What I missed is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30
15:41:11 UTC ---
We predict main() as executed once, not cold, so code inside loop is inlined
for speed at -O1/-O2/-O3, but this testcase is compiled with -Os.
This seems like
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-30
16:00:12 UTC ---
and BTW -Os also reason why -finline-limits has no effect. As long as we
predict code size to grow, we won't inline at -Os. We tend to regress at -Os
C++ for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #9 from Zeev Tarantov zeev.tarantov at gmail dot com 2010-10-30
20:05:57 UTC ---
Using -fwhole-program I got sane code. But almost all programs that are not
trivial cannot be compiled with -fwhole-program without LTO. At least on 4.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.5.2 |---
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-29
23:28:39 UTC ---
Especially since we now predict main as cold (it's called once).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46228
--- Comment #6 from Zeev Tarantov zeev.tarantov at gmail dot com 2010-10-29
23:44:49 UTC ---
Setting -finline-limit high didn't produce different code.
This function:
4007f8: 48 8b 77 10 mov0x10(%rdi),%rsi
4007fc:
15 matches
Mail list logo
