This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: CFG transparent inlining
> > On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 14:57 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Daniel Berlin writes:
> > > > On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 14:48 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > > Jan Hubicka writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bootstrapped/regtested i686-pc-gnu-linux,x86-64-linux,ppc-linux and ia64-linux
> > > > > > (last two only in earlier incarnation of patch before resolving some further
> > > > > > conflicts on moving mainline)
> > > > >
> > > > > Tested with large code bases?
> > > >
> > > > SPEC, all of int and FP.
> > >
> > > I can't remember what is in SPEC. Has libc been tested, or the kernel?
> >
> > Not by me :)
> > (My testing has mainly been a side-effect of tree-profiling work :P)
>
> I also built some C++ packages (mozilla, lyx) and tested SPEC in several
> different setups on tree-profiling (such as --combine with inlining that
> enables quite a lot of transformations). The mainline patch is not 100%
> identical, but I am going to try out glibc for now.
> Overall I believe that basic inlining works fluently now, side cases such
> as warnings or exception handling pops up, but hopefully our testsuite
> covers these pretty well.
So testing of glibc/kernel wasn't particularly interesting. glibc fails
with syntax error in the same place as it does on vanilla mainline,
kernel builds and crash booting same place as mainline one does. I am
investigating what is going wrong...
Honza
>
> Honza
> >