Re: Inlining on trees

[kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)]

    I disagree, actually.  I'd certainly like to see the new tree-based
    inlining working before killing integrate.c.  And, there might still
    be reasons why integrate.c might be useful; there are languages (like
    Ada and Pascal) that are not yet in the tree but will be at some
    point.

I feel the same way you do, but not quite for the same reason.  I can't
speak to Pascal but Ada could trivially convert to function- or file-at-time
compilation since the front end already compiles the entire file into Ada
abstract syntax trees before calling the backend at all.  There are definite
advantages to tree based inlining (and the Ada front-end already does some),
but I'm not convinced that the opposite isn't true, that there might not
be some cases where the RTL based inlining might be better. I can't think
of any such right now, since it certainly *seems* like the tree level is
the most efficient for inlining, but there are plenty of cases where RTL
is the best level for optimizations, so I'm not convinced I'm not missing
something here.