This is the mail archive of the 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: inlining failed

Sat Sep 06 2003, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 September 2003 19:44, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > > Gunther Piez <> writes:
> > > > After adding a '--param max-inline-insns-single=500' everything now gets
> > > > inlined like I want, even with my rusty old gcc 3.4 20030903 :-)
> > >
> > > The patch also implements better heuristics, try adding
> > > -funit-at-a-time to your compiler to see them in effect.
> > 
> > After adding -funit-at-a-time and compiling all sources together, once again 
> > some inline functions were not inlined. And after forcing them to be inlined 
> > with ((always_inline)) some others were not inlined. Just like I hit the 
> > 'max-inline-insns' limit, but even setting it to ridiculous high values 
> > yields no effect, the functions were still 'exlined'. So I ended up with 
> > ((always_inline)) for every function I want to get inlined, as before.
> > But this is still with gcc-3.4 20030903, i will try it again with a fresh 
> > checkout.
> There are another arguments limiting overall compilation unit growth and
> growth of very large functions to limit exponential growth on some C++
> programs.  It is likely that you are fixing one of these.

But this is C source not C++, so why should some some limits for 
C++ stop the compiler?  C simply isn't C++.  (I know this is common
middle-end code, still, I think thisis a valid question.)

Håkan Hjort

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