This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: issues with inlining
On Jan 9, 2003, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
> To let the compiler decide is MORE can be inlined than what I already
> marked as must-be-inlined (although it doesn't do that :/).
If you expect the inline keyword to accomplish this, check your
assumptions. That's not the meaning of `inline' in any Standard I've
ever seen.
-finline-all-functions (implied by -O3) behaves as if every single
function has been declared as inline. If you use one of this options,
you get what you asked for.
> Of course it is best to FIRST inline and THEN optimize - but, the set
> instruction limit should be on the optimized result, not on on the
> number of instructions before optimization.
How about your contributing this time-machine algorithm you seem to
have come up with? :-)
> Note that even with -O0 these blocks are removed... so why the
> need to count those instruction when deciding whether or not to
> inline the function?!
Because we don't do many optimizations on trees yet. As we move
optimization passes from RTL to trees, before function inlining, this
should improve.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer