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: [tree-ssa] Non-transitive inlining plans


On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > This would also make some more explicit control over inlining possible,
> > as the much anticipated __attribute__((leafify)) and/or common #pragmas
>
> Implementing leafify attribute is now very trivial - all you need is to
> do recursive DFS walk over call edges and call cgraph_mark_inline_edge
> on each edge you see with some sanity checking via
> cgraph_recursive_inlining_p so you know that you are not caught in
> infinite loop.

Yes, I thought so, too.

> > like
> > #pragma inline
> > to inline the following call, or
> > #pragma inline complete
> > as the equivalent to __attribute__((leafify)) at the call site. All these
> > sort of pragmas can be found in HPC compilers.
>
> I didn't know this idea is already standarized somewhere (I was just
> playing about it). I consider the pragma syntax somewhat disgusting, but
> overall this is good feature to have and ineed it is easy to do.

Its easy to do, and it might make some people complain less about "inline"
not meaning inline...

> > Thanks for your continued work on improving inlining!
> >
> > I'll try to bring forward my __attribute__((leafify)) work to tree-ssa
> > once this new inlining infrastructure has settled a bit.
>
> What was the conclusion about including this in official tree?  Was
> there any oposition against the attribute?

There were no opposition, if I remember correctly, but there also were no
real supporters for the idea.  All these manual inlining control is really
special to the (small) group of HPC C++ community...

> If you do have problems with copyright assignments, I can simply re-do
> the patch, it shall be few lines anyway now.

I don't have a copyright assignment.

> I hope to have infrastructure in the form I wanted it to be.  Now I plan
> to concentrate on new features :) (of course modulo new problems - the
> change is intrusive and somewhat dificult)

Of course ;)

Thanks,

Richard.

--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/


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