http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334
--- Comment #45 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-01-25 10:20:01 UTC --- On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44334 > > --- Comment #44 from Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu> > 2011-01-25 03:13:39 UTC --- > Testing... > > Index: gcc/params.def > =================================================================== > --- gcc/params.def (revision 169185) > +++ gcc/params.def (working copy) > @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ DEFPARAM(PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_INSNS, > DEFPARAM(PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_GROWTH, > "large-function-growth", > "Maximal growth due to inlining of large function (in percent)", > - 100, 0, 0) > + 400, 0, 0) > DEFPARAM(PARAM_LARGE_UNIT_INSNS, > "large-unit-insns", > "The size of translation unit to be considered large", > > shows only a major improvement for fatigue (30%). This same improvement can be > achieved at -m32 and -m64 with just an increase of large-function-growth to > 200. We certainly won't adjust params at this stage. There are other cases (that c-ray one) where more aggressive inlining helps, but we should avoid regressing for -O2 and only tune -O3 params eventually.
