This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][Middle-end][Version 4]Add a new option to control inlining only on static functions
Alexander,
thanks for the questions.
Yes, we had some discussion on the questions you raised during the review of the initial patch back to 9/11/2018.
please take a look at those discussions at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00549.html <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00549.html>
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00787.html <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00787.html>
and let me know if those discussion still does not answer your questions.
Qing
> On Sep 26, 2018, at 6:12 AM, Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, Qing Zhao wrote:
>> +2018-09-20 Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>
>> +
>> + * cif-code.def (FUNCTION_EXTERN): New CIFCODE.
>> + * common.opt (-finline-only-static): New option.
>> + * doc/invoke.texi: Document -finline-only-static.
>> + * ipa-inline.c (can_inline_edge_p): Control inlining based on
>> + function's linkage.
>
> Note, I am not a reviewer.
>
> In my opinion, there's a problem with the patch that it looks like an ad-hoc,
> incomplete solution. You said you need this change to help with building
> livepatching-capable kernels, but it's not clear what exactly the issue with
> inlining non-static functions is. Can you describe how the workflow looks like
> so code duplication due to inlining static functions is not an issue, but
> inlining non-static functions is a problem? Does using existing
> -fno-inline-functions flag achieve something useful for your usecase?
>
> Please always make it clear what problem the patch is intended to solve and help
> reviewers see the connection between the problem and your solution. Look how the
> "XY problem" effect applies partially in this situation.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem
> http://xyproblem.info/
>
> Alexander