http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375
--- Comment #148 from Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de> 2012-12-02 11:57:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #147) > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 > > > > --- Comment #146 from Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de> > > 2012-12-02 07:36:02 UTC --- > > (In reply to comment #145) > > > > > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 > > > > > > > > --- Comment #144 from Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot > > > > de> 2012-12-01 12:39:30 UTC --- > > > > It looks like there is a LTO code-size regression on trunk: > > > > (size of libxul.so, build without elfhack): > > > > > > > > gcc lto/pgo : size: 42204584 | Kraken bench: 2723.9ms +/- 0.9% > > > > > > About LTO+PGO please be sure that you have the Teresa's fix from this > > > Friday in > > > your tree. > > > > Yes, my tree already included this fix and also the fix from bug 55551. > > Please try to reduce HOT_BB_COUNT_WS_PERMILLE to 990. I also see some > regressions > on some SPEC benchmarks (such as GCC) and this helps. If it doesn't it would > be > nice to know what value is needed for comparable size. Unfortunately it doesn't help much, because with "--param hot-bb-count-ws-permille=990" the size is only 0.25% smaller: (With --param) : 42098856 (Without ) : 42204584 I will try smaller values later.
