This is the mail archive of the gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Old Java PRs

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
Cc: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at yahoo dot com>, <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>,<java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:08:45 +0100
Subject: Re: Old Java PRs
References: <16063.56768.947019.172528@masala.cambridge.redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.44.0305121349400.26503-100000@ops2.one-point.com>

Jeff Sturm writes:
 > On Mon, 12 May 2003, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > >  > Unless I misunderstand this PR, it is fixed by the new inliner (except for
 > >  > the bytecode frontend, which still does not emit whole functions as
 > >  > trees).
 > >
 > > It isn't.  The new inliner still will not inline functions until they
 > > have been expanded.
 > 
 > Unfortunately the PR doesn't include a test case.  
 > 
 > So it looks as though you're right, though I could swear I've seen this
 > work before.  My understanding of the tree inliner is that it does not
 > require expanding the inlined bodies to RTL, but I don't remember the
 > details.

Given that I wrote the inliner, I do.  :-)

The problem is that binding contours for variables are generated when
the functions are expanded.

Andrew.

References:
- Re: Old Java PRs
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Old Java PRs
  - From: Jeff Sturm

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]