This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: gcc 3.1 bug: flag_no_inline incorrectly set


On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Alan Modra wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 04:59:33PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > > 
> > > That makes more sense -- but I still don't get it.  flag_inline_trees
> > > is set to 1, right above that point; shouldn't it be set to 1 only
> > > in the not-instrumenting-entry-and-exit case?
> > 
> > Maybe Neil, who wrote the original code, should fight this out with
> > those who later broke it.  :-)
> > 
> > > Furthermore, isn't the flag_no_inline stuff independent of
> > > flag_instrument_function_entry_exit?
> > 
> > It ought to be.  I didn't want to raise that issue, partly because I
> > can't remember exactly why we don't want the two together.
> > 
> > > Why not something like this:
> > > 
> > >  /* Normally, we want to inline using the tree inliner -- but
> > >     instrumentation of function entry and exit is not supported
> > >     when using the tree inliner, so we cannot use the tree inliner
> > >     in that case.  */
> > >  flag_inline_trees = !flag_instrument_function_entry_exit;
> > > 
> > >  if (!flag_no_inline)
> > >    flag_no_inline = 1;
> > 
> > No, not this, please!  Either leave flag_no_inline alone, or only set
> > it if flag_instrument_function_entry_exit.
> 
> I don't think you get the use of flag_no_inline.
> 
> it turns off the RTL inliner, not the tree one.

Sorry, misread the code, your right.
You want 

flag_no_inline |= flag_instrument_function_entry_exit

or something

> 


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