On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:14:14 +0100, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Concerning growth limits: > > If you take a look on when -finline-unit-growth limit hits, it is clear > that it hits very often on small units (several times in the kernel, > testsuite and such) just because there is tinny space to manuever. It > hits almost never on medium units (in GCC bootstrap it hits almost > never) and almost always on big units > > My intuition alwas has been that for larger units the limits should be > much smaller and pooma was major counter example. If we suceed solving > this, I would guess we can introduce something like small-unit-insns > limit and limit size of units that exceeds this. Does this sound sane? POOMA hitting the unit-growth limit is caused by the abstraction penalty of the inliner and is no longer an issue with the new code size estimate. Though with the new estimate our INSNS_PER_CALL is probably too high, so we're reducing the unit-size too much inlining one-statement functions and as such getting more room for further inlining and finally regress badly in compile-time (as max-inline-insns-single is so high we're inlining stuff we shouldn't, but as it fit's the unit-growth limit now, we do ...) Richard.
