This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: inlining failed
Sat Sep 06 2003, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 September 2003 19:44, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > > Gunther Piez <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.)