> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > For -Os it should be enough to set PARAM_STACK_FRAME_GROWTH
> > > to zero. Inlining at -Os should already only happen if it decreases
> > > (overall!) code-size. Thus, inlining a function that is called once and
> > > that does not need to be emitted
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Paul Brook wrote:
> > For -Os it should be enough to set PARAM_STACK_FRAME_GROWTH
> > to zero. Inlining at -Os should already only happen if it decreases
> > (overall!) code-size. Thus, inlining a function that is called once and
> > that does not need to be emitted will alway
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
>> Hmm, we should be able to model this counting the number of edges
>> bypassing the call, right?
>
> Something like that, yes.
>
> Ideally you'd want to factor in the size of the function, and the current
> length of those edges, at which point y
> > On Thumb-2 we found that the overhead of a function call was often
> > smaller than the cost of lengthening branches in the caller.
> > It turns out that, over a fair selection of applications, programmers
> > tend to write "nice" sized functions. After inlining we have big nasty
> > blocks of
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Paul Brook wrote:
> > For -Os it should be enough to set PARAM_STACK_FRAME_GROWTH
> > to zero. Inlining at -Os should already only happen if it decreases
> > (overall!) code-size. Thus, inlining a function that is called once and
> > that does not need to be emitted will alwa
> For -Os it should be enough to set PARAM_STACK_FRAME_GROWTH
> to zero. Inlining at -Os should already only happen if it decreases
> (overall!) code-size. Thus, inlining a function that is called once and
> that does not need to be emitted will always be an overall code-size
> win.
>
> > A side
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Hariharan wrote:
> Hi,
> I ran into some code-size/stack size bloat using -Os for a piece of code.
> This seemed to happen only when certain single call-site functions are
> defined "static" and not otherwise. On investigating further on this, i see
> that the inli
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Hariharan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I ran into some code-size/stack size bloat using -Os for a piece of code.
>> This seemed to happen only when certain single call-site functions are
>> defined "static" and not ot
Hi,
I ran into some code-size/stack size bloat using -Os for a piece of
code. This seemed to happen only when certain single call-site functions
are defined "static" and not otherwise. On investigating further on
this, i see that the inline_functions_called_once seems to rely only on
"cgraph_c
