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: [RFA] Kill artificial inlining limit

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>,Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>,"gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: 13 May 2003 08:48:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFA] Kill artificial inlining limit
Organization: Red Hat Canada
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305131427510.15564-100000@wotan.suse.de> <Pine.BSF.4.55.0305131437140.48268@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 08:38, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> The true fix, IMNSHO, is to inline bottom-up, not top-down (and in fact
> that was my very first reaction when I heard about the new inliner back
> before GCC 3.0).
> 
> But isn't tree-ssa going in that direction?
> 
I don't think there's anyone working on the inliner in tree-ssa.  Jeff
Law modified the inliner to use GIMPLE trees, but the basic
functionality is intact.  Now that we have a call graph, I suppose one
could experiment with a bottom-up inliner.


Diego.

References:
- Re: [RFA] Kill artificial inlining limit
  - From: Michael Matz
- Re: [RFA] Kill artificial inlining limit
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer

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