This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] Restore cross-language inlining into Ada
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:20:11 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch] Restore cross-language inlining into Ada
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9690839 dot xiTXAUyZ0b at polaris> <CAFiYyc3r0-3hTfB92huJ48C=yGosMFaPuXyg170_H5ZBZWEUbA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160121141352 dot GB12209 at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <CAFiYyc25MQZoZYEbRRNGRiaHn1o1=2zWYmr=UHm4111fqrnaeQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
> >
> > Well, it is a while since I looked deeper into EH code, but if I remember
> > correctly we have EH region associated with statements and the non-call
> > exceptions do not have EH region that is taken by EH code as an information
> > that the statement was proved to not throw? In that case inlining could be
> > safe, if the inlined statements are not placed in EH region (I think inliner
> > does that)
> >
> > So perhaps this inlining is always safe?
>
> That's what I think.
OK, as far as I can tell, Eric introduced the check in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01822.html
I am fine with it being relaxed and permitting inlining !non_call_exceptions to
non_call_exceptions functions.. It would be also cool to have a testcases.
Honza