Re: attribute((leafify)) for 3.4

[Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Jan Hubicka wrote:

> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > initialization up to avoid going endlessly through callgraph loops.
> > Recursive inlining seems to be prevented somehow at least for not-direct
>
> Ah, I see, there is still recursive inlining preventing code in
> tree-inline I wanted to remove after killing old heuristics code.
> OK, still you mark maybe_inline in cyclic way in the callgraph that will
> eventually bring you problems if you attempt to get right the code size
> estimation (BTW you should at least increase global_insns during
> leafifying or you will get the leafifed function inlined too many times)

I dont update the code size because we wont inline leafified functions
anyway, as documented (I clear edge.inline_call for them).   I suspect the
code size estimates would be overly pessimistic anyway (thats the reason
for using leafify, otherwise the heuristics would work, too).

> > I won't submit this officially for 3.4, as I dont have a copyright
> > assignment yet and I suspect this would last too long to be accepted late
> > in stage 3 anyways. Also the concept of leafify needs some arguments.
> > Apart from this I think it is trivial for you to implement this
> > functionality after cleanup in 3.5, so I wont need to fiddle around with
> > copyright assignments.
>
> OK, I will try to get into this soon.

Thanks,

Richard.