------- Comment #23 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2010-04-03 21:02 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852
> 1) overall_size is reduced twice for the same function, once in > cgraph_clone_inlined_nodes, once in cgraph_mark_inline_edge (which calls > the former), this leads to double accounting Hmm, yep, it is bug here and I guess it makes tramp3d unhappy since it relies on the overall unit growth. I will try to fix this and retune to see if this can be used to help the CSiBE regression that also might be related to this thinko. > 2) cgraph_check_inline_limits checks the wrong size against the > PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_INSNS parameter, it needs to use the original size, > not the one estimated after inlining. Well, PARAM_LARGE_FUNCTION_INSNS was meant to let small functions to grow as much as they want until the threshold is hit, so size after inlining makes sense here. Honza -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436