This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATH] PR/49139 fix always_inline failures diagnostics
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Christian Bruel <christian.bruel@st.com> wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> On 06/06/2011 11:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Christian Bruel<christian.bruel@st.com>
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> OK, the only difference is that we don't have the node analyzed here,
>>>>> so
>>>>> externally_visible, etc are not set. With the initial proposal the
>>>>> warning
>>>>> was emitted only if the function could not be inlined. Now it will be
>>>>> emitted for each ?DECL_COMDAT (decl)&& ? ?!DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P
>>>>> (decl))
>>>>> even
>>>>> if not preemptible, so conservatively we don't want to duplicate the
>>>>> availability check.
>>>>
>>>> Hm, I'm confused. ?Do all DECL_COMDAT functions have the
>>>> always_inline attribute set? ?I would have expected
>>>>
>>>> + ? ? ?if (lookup_attribute ("always_inline", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl)))
>>>> + ? ? ? {
>>>> + ? ? ? ? if (!DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (decl))
>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? warning (OPT_Wattributes,
>>>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"always_inline not declared inline might not be
>>>> inlinable");
>>>> + ? ? ? }
>>>>
>>>
>>> I meant !DECL_COMDAT || !DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P. but I was
>>> overprecautious.
>>> Didn't realize that member functions was already marked with
>>> DECLARED_INLINED_P even if not explicitly set. So OK one check is enough
>>>
>>>> do you get excessive warnings with this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No I don't. That's enough to catch the original issue
>>
>
> Unfortunately still not satisfactory, I've been testing it against a few
> packages, and I notice excessive warnings with the use of __typeof (__error)
> that doesn't propagate the inline keyword.
>
> For instance, a reduced use extracted from the glibc
>
> extern __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) ?void
> error ()
> {
>
> }
>
> extern void
> __error ()
> {
> }
>
> extern __typeof (__error) error __attribute__ ((weak, alias ("__error")));
>
> emits an annoying warning on the error redefinition.
>
> So, a check in addition of the DECL_DECLARED_INLINED_P is needed,
> TREE_ADDRESSABLE seems appropriate, since in the case of missing inline the
> function would be emitted. So I'm testing:
>
> if (lookup_attribute ("always_inline", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (decl))
> ? ? ? ? ?&& !DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (decl)
> ? ? ? ? ?&& TREE_ADDRESSABLE (decl))
>
> other idea ? or should be just drop this warning ?
Hmm. Honza, any idea on the above? Christian, I suppose you
could check if the cgraph node for that decl has the redefined_extern_inline
flag set (checking TREE_ADDRESSABLE looks bogus to me).
I'm not sure how the frontend merges those two decls - I suppose
it will have a weak always-inline function with body :/
Richard.
>> Ok. ?The patch is ok with the !DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P check
>> if it still passes bootstrap& ?regtest.
>>
>
> thanks, for now I postpone until glibc is ok and more legacy checks.
>
> Cheers
>
> Christian
>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard.
>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>
>