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] Attribute noclone

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:51:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Attribute noclone
References: <20090717193011.GA22302@virgil.suse.cz> <84fc9c000907171240j6911b90udbc5a466bc26046a@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 15:40, Richard
Guenther<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hm. ÂWhy not simply make the noinline attribute prevent cloning as well?
> I think that is what code using the noinline attribute would expect
> (the body shouldn't be duplicated).

I don't have a strong preference, though noinline does seem to imply noclone.

In any case, if we agree that noinline implies noclone, this would fix
the current over-optimization failure of
gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/strncpy.c with LTO (we end up calling
the user function instead of the builtin because of IPA-CP cloning).

Either noinline disables all cloning or we add noclone.  I'd rather
use noinline, unless there's a compelling reason to distinguish the
two.

Diego.

References:
- [PATCH] Attribute noclone
  - From: Martin Jambor
- Re: [PATCH] Attribute noclone
  - From: Richard Guenther

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