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] |
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Richard Guenther<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Xinliang David Li<davidxl@google.com> wrote: >> Please see the attached file a new patch to fix the problem -- the >> argmismatch ?legality check is moved from lowering to the inliner >> together with the rest of the checks. >> >> Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64/linux. >> SPEC2k int and SPEC06 testing with FDO. >> >> Ok to checkin? > > You seem to amend all places where we check tree_can_inline_p > but one (which looks like an omission). ?So - can you fold the > checks into that function instead? Yes, this is what I want to do too. > > Ok with that change. See new patch. Bootstrap and retested on x86_64/linux. SPEC2k and SPEC06 testing with FDO. Thanks, David > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Thanks, >> >> David >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Xinliang David Li<davidxl@google.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Joseph S. Myers<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Xinliang David Li wrote: >>>> >>>>> The attached patch is meant to fix 41012. With this patch, >>>> >>>> Why does this patch not add a testcase to the testsuite? >>> >>> Will be added. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joseph S. Myers >>>> joseph@codesourcery.com >>>> >>> >> >
Attachment:
inl_mismatch.p3
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
inl.cg
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |