This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/35262] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
- From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 4 Mar 2008 07:03:53 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/35262] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
- References: <bug-35262-682@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #16 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-04 07:03 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
> Note however, that the patch also didn't help Geoff's i686-linux tester, just
> have a look to gcc-testresults.
Sorry, I had two versions of patch and managed to commit the wrong copy.
Sent correct one to ML. It should be fixed now.
>
>
> I think we should not mix the two issues, here. The first issue is that, IMO,
> the function we are discussing should be inlined, it's very small and we always
> inlined it until recently.
The point I wanted to make is that inliner when knowing to be inlining a
cold call (because it was hinted so by __builtin_expect) is correctly a
lot more sellective. Basically anything that expands to function call
and some extra code around is a loss for code size inlining.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35262