[Bug c/29782] New: Incorrect inlining failure
takis at issaris dot org
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Thu Nov 9 16:30:00 GMT 2006
GCC sometimes does not inline code claiming the function has grown to large,
while inlining it would have _decreased_ the codesize.
For example, the following block of code, will result in read_time being
inlined:
#include <stdio.h>
static inline long long read_time(void) {
long long l;
asm volatile( "rdtsc\n\t"
: "=A" (l)
);
return l;
}
int main()
{
long long l = read_time();
printf("%Ld\n", l);
}
The following block will not inline read_time:
#include <stdio.h>
static __attribute__ ((noinline)) long long read_time(void) {
long long l;
asm volatile( "rdtsc\n\t"
: "=A" (l)
);
return l;
}
int main() {
long long l = read_time();
printf("%Ld\n", l);
}
As read_time is really small, its codesize will always be smaller if it gets
inlined. Nonetheless, in some cases the compiler gives a warning that the code
has grown to large, and that it will _disable_ inlining because of this:
"warning: inlining failed in call to Âread_timeÂ: --param large-function-growth
limit reached"
This seems wrong to me as the non-inlined code would be larger then the inlined
code.
Compiling it with:
gcc -c -I. -fomit-frame-pointer -g -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wall
-Wno-switch -Wdisabled-optimization -Wpointer-arith -Wredundant-decls
-Winline -O3 rdtsc.c
Shows that the inlined version is indeed smaller:
size inlinerdtsc.o
text data bss dec hex filename
51 0 0 51 33 inlinerdtsc.o
size rdtsc.o
text data bss dec hex filename
68 0 0 68 44 rdtsc.o
I do not think it is specific to this short block of code, as
the generated assembly shows rdtsc being only 2 bytes long, while
the call instruction by itself already occupies 5 bytes:
Not inlined:
00000000 <read_time>:
0: 0f 31 rdtsc
2: c3 ret
3: 8d b6 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi
9: 8d bc 27 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(%edi),%edi
00000010 <main>:
10: 8d 4c 24 04 lea 0x4(%esp),%ecx
14: 83 e4 f0 and $0xfffffff0,%esp
17: ff 71 fc pushl 0xfffffffc(%ecx)
1a: 51 push %ecx
1b: 83 ec 18 sub $0x18,%esp
1e: e8 dd ff ff ff call 0 <read_time>
23: c7 04 24 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,(%esp)
2a: 89 44 24 04 mov %eax,0x4(%esp)
2e: 89 54 24 08 mov %edx,0x8(%esp)
32: e8 fc ff ff ff call 33 <main+0x23>
37: 83 c4 18 add $0x18,%esp
3a: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
3c: 59 pop %ecx
3d: 8d 61 fc lea 0xfffffffc(%ecx),%esp
40: c3 ret
Inlined:
00000000 <main>:
0: 8d 4c 24 04 lea 0x4(%esp),%ecx
4: 83 e4 f0 and $0xfffffff0,%esp
7: ff 71 fc pushl 0xfffffffc(%ecx)
a: 51 push %ecx
b: 83 ec 18 sub $0x18,%esp
e: 0f 31 rdtsc
10: 89 44 24 04 mov %eax,0x4(%esp)
14: 89 54 24 08 mov %edx,0x8(%esp)
18: c7 04 24 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,(%esp)
1f: e8 fc ff ff ff call 20 <main+0x20>
24: 83 c4 18 add $0x18,%esp
27: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
29: 59 pop %ecx
2a: 8d 61 fc lea 0xfffffffc(%ecx),%esp
2d: c3 ret
Does GCC just disable all inlining as soon as a certain limit in codesize is
reached? Or does it actually try to determine whether inlining will increase or
decrease the codesize? If so, is an heuristic used or an exact calculation (if
possible)? If an heuristic is used, what is the heuristic?
Thanks for any reply! :)
System info:
* Ubuntu Edgy Eft 6.10
* Linux issaris 2.6.17-10-generic #2 SMP Fri Oct 13 18:45:35 UTC 2006 i686
GNU/Linux
* Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz
* Compiler:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,treelang --prefix=/usr
--enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls
--program-suffix=-4.1 --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-mpfr --enable-checking=release i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.2 20060928 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.1-13ubuntu5)
With friendly regards,
Takis
--
Summary: Incorrect inlining failure
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: takis at issaris dot org
GCC build triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC host triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i486-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782
More information about the Gcc-bugs
mailing list