This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] PR 12389
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:03:57 +0200, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> wrote:
> It seems to be, however I am not sure whether the wording isn't just
> inexact forumation. I don't see any value in producing abstract DIE for
> subroutine that is not inline, can be inlined (so it is inline
> implicitly) but it never actually was inlined that still match wording
> above.
The only value is communicating to the any consumers that the function was
declared inline.
In general, generating pretty much any dwarf information is optional. This
certainly qualifies.
> I tought dwarf has different place to place full type information into
> and the inline keyword would belong there.
No, inline is not part of the type.
> Assuming the your conclusion to be valid, we should produce abstract
> DIE with condtiional:
> (DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (decl) || cgraph_possibly_inlined_p (decl))
>
> Is there any value in expanding debug information this way?
I would guess not.
> If not, perhaps we should keep the test just
> cgraph_possibly_inlined_p (decl) and add a comment to it and to testcase
> that we may want to change mind in future if we find some use for this.
Makes sense to me.
Jason