2009/11/14 Toon Moene <t...@moene.org>:
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> -fno-ipa-cp should work around your problem for time being.
>
> Indeed it did. Some figures:
>
> hlprog (the main forecast program):
>
> link time optimization time: 3:20 minutes
> top memory usage: 920 Mbyte
>
> Inliner report:
>
> Inlined 764 calls, eliminated 226 functions, size 260368 turned to 126882
> size.
>
> hirvda (the observation usage program):
>
> link time optimization time: 10:05 minutes
> top memory usage: 2.3 Gbyte
>
> Inliner report:
>
> Inlined 2518 calls, eliminated 608 functions, size 1187204 turned to 705838
> size.
>
> Of course, there still is:
>
> Considering invlo6 size 1996.
> Called once from lowpass 530 insns.
> Inlined into lowpass which now has 2293 size for a net change of -2229
> size.
>
> Considering invlo4 size 1462.
> Called once from lowpass 2293 insns.
> Not inlined because --param large-function-growth limit reached.
>
> Considering invlo2 size 933.
> Called once from lowpass 2293 insns.
> Not inlined because --param large-function-growth limit reached.
>
> where the largest callee *does* get inlined, while two smaller ones don't (I
> agree with Jan that this would have been solved by training the inliner with
> profiling data, because only invlo4 gets called).
>
> However, my endeavour is to boldly go where no inliner has gone before, and
> implement -falways-inline-functions-only-called-once, along the following
> lines:
>
> $ svn diff ipa-inline.c
> Index: ipa-inline.c
> ===================================================================
> --- ipa-inline.c (revision 153776)
> +++ ipa-inline.c (working copy)
> @@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@
> node->callers->caller->global.size);
> }
>
> - if (cgraph_check_inline_limits (node->callers->caller, node,
> + if (1 || cgraph_check_inline_limits (node->callers->caller,
> node,
> &reason, false))
> {
> cgraph_mark_inline (node->callers);
>
> (Sugg. b. Rich. G.), because inlining functions that are only called once is
> always profitable (in number of instructions saved).
;)
Note that some optimizers (for example value-numbering) contain cut-offs
so that they are turned off for large functions as otherwise compile-time
issues appear as algorithms are non-linear in the size of the function.
So it might even be not profitable in the end for size and speed reasons.
Richard.
