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]

Re: inline functions and local labels

On Tue, Jul 28, 1998 at 06:41:16AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I'm confused.  How can deciding *not* to inline a function cause
> problems?  Inlining has no semantic consequences.  It isn't valid in C
> to do anything that relies on functions being inlined.

The construct is used in a couple of functions used throughout the network
stack.  Failing to inline has a disasterous performance impact.

> True, in this case.  But the point is that GCC will still be doing the wrong
> thing with the labels, by not duplicating them.

Eh?  I thought that was what inline_remap.label_map was for.  In which
situation are labels not being duplicated, and I'll fix it.

> But when there are just the addresses of labels, we produce confusing
> results.

Indeed.  We will probably eliminate the construct at some point in the
future (as the mere existance of the labels inhibits optimization), but
as we've gone into code-freeze for a release, it will not happen soon.

So I am quite interested in doing what needs to be done to ensure that
this can continue to work.


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