This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] PR 12389
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:49:31 +0200, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> >> > If not, perhaps we should keep the test just
> >> > cgraph_possibly_inlined_p (decl) and add a comment to it and to testcase
> >> > that we may want to change mind in future if we find some use for this.
> >>
> >> Makes sense to me.
> > OK, this way we have dwarf2 specific decisions on whether to emit
> > abstract DIE gone. Is the attached patch OK together with (subset of)
> > the testcases I sent earlier?
>
> I don't see the comment you mentioned.
>
> > *** c-decl.c 4 Oct 2003 16:49:26 -0000 1.454
> > --- c-decl.c 21 Oct 2003 14:46:21 -0000
> > *************** duplicate_decls (tree newdecl, tree oldd
> > *** 1406,1412 ****
> > been written out yet. */
> > if (new_is_definition && DECL_INITIAL (olddecl))
> > {
> > ! if (TREE_USED (olddecl))
> > (*debug_hooks->outlining_inline_function) (olddecl);
> >
> > /* The new defn must not be inline. */
> > --- 1406,1415 ----
> > been written out yet. */
> > if (new_is_definition && DECL_INITIAL (olddecl))
> > {
> > ! if (TREE_USED (olddecl)
> > ! /* ??? In unit-at-a-time mode we never actually use the inline
> > ! version of the function and use new body for inlining instead. */
> > ! && !flag_unit_at_a_time)
> > (*debug_hooks->outlining_inline_function) (olddecl);
> >
> > /* The new defn must not be inline. */
>
> Weren't you going to suppress inlining in this case?
Hmm, I originally tought of bit involved sollution I wanted to post
separately, but I see that it already happens - we set DECL_UNINLINABLE
two lines lower. Would it be OK to update comment with
/* In unit-at-a-time mode we never actually use the inline function so
there is no need to output debug information. */
Honza
>
> Jason