Re: PR tree-optimization/51680 (not inlining comdats)

[Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>]

> 
> That surely should be MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO instead.  At _least_.
> You are triggering very much more inlining during early inlining now -
> I don't see
> where we did this for -Os already as you claim.  In fact it is totally
> against the spirit of early inlining now :(

This is IPA inlining, not early inlining. I just moved the logic from -Os logic
to include -O2 logic, too.

I added the size check because I was worried of units containing one very large
function that simplifies quite a lot by inlining (because of the new predicate
code). Because badness function is not really worried about function sizes (it
expects them to be small) and merely accounts relative benefits, we would end
up then inlining this large function quite early in queue preventing other
inlining from happening.

So it seemed safer to add the size check. Except the degenerate case described
above it should not make much of practical difference.
> 
> Why does IPA inlining not figure out that inlining the indirect call is good?

For reasons described in the original mail. We are doing -O2, function is not
declared inline and so far we was inlining only for size at -O2 in that case.

Honza