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: [PATCH] Add -fobey-inline

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:34:42 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add -fobey-inline
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502281158110.2297-100000@alwazn.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de>

Richard Guenther wrote:

This also shows why obeying inline by default for C++ like Mark
suggests is not a good idea (the numbers above are with
checking disabled and the old code size estimate).  It also
hints at a fact that we have algorithms that are not linear
in function (or BB) size.

Very depressing. I'm not sure that I think that this proves that such a switch is a bad idea in general, but it sure does suggest that it's not a great idea to add this feature at this time; we need to figure out what's going wrong with the optimizers when we actually do honor the user's "inline" directives.

I agree that for 4.0 this probably takes this idea off the table; I don't want to introduce a new option that will just make users who try to use it unhappy.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304

References:
- [PATCH] Add -fobey-inline (was: Re: Inlining and estimate_num_insns)
  - From: Richard Guenther

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