Re: Inliner for Java

[Andrew Haley <aph at cambridge dot redhat dot com>]

Jeff Sturm writes:
 > On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > I admit that I'm unsure who would be the best person to review this.
 > 
 > I'm not a reviewer, but I did a bit of experimenting with this patch.
 > 
 > First off, I think you lost the "return false;" at the end of
 > java_post_options.  My compiler ICEd until I replaced it.

Very strange.  Thanks for fixing that.

 > The inlining performance seemed about as good as the old RTL inliner:
 > 
 > a) no inlining of constructors, because they don't have DECL_INLINE set
 > b) no inlining from bytecode, since the jcf frontend doesn't produce
 > trees
 > c) inlining takes place in declaration order only, i.e. only preceding
 > methods are inlined
 > d) no inlining across translation units
 > 
 > a) and c) seem easy to fix; I patched my own tree to do just that.

Excellent.  Will you post that patch?

 > b) is hard until the jcf frontend is rewritten, right?.

I don't think it needs rewriting, but yes.

 > I don't know what is needed for d).  When resolve_class finds another
 > source file, it creates a tree representation, but my attempts to use it
 > resulted either in bad code or an ICE.  My hunch is that some of the
 > patch_* functions are not applied to those trees, but I haven't
 > investigated much.

Once the inliner is in, we can work on improving the way it is used.

Andrew.