jrtc27 added a comment.
In D79916#2279987 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916#2279987>, @MaskRay wrote:
> Several previous comments are FreeBSD specific. To we clang developers, the
> concrete request is
>
>> Given that GCC will inline at -O, at least these days, ...
>
> right? I think this makes sense, especially when `inline` is explicitly
> specified... This appears to be related to some -O1 work @echristo is working
> on.
>
> // gcc -O1 and g++ -O1 inline `foo`. Note that in C99 mode, `extern int
> foo` is needed to ask the compiler to provide an external definition.
> // clang -O1 and clang++ -O1 do not inline `foo`
> inline int foo(int a) {
> return a + a;
> }
>
> int bar(int a, int b) {
> return foo(a + b);
> }
Yes, `inline` should certainly be inlined, but also non-`inline` things should
too. Perhaps not so aggressively, but there's no good reason not to, really, it
can be a big win with a simple transformation. GCC seems to inline even those:
# echo 'static void foo(void) { __asm__ __volatile__ ("#asdf"); } void
bar(void) { foo(); } void baz(void) { foo(); foo(); }' | gcc -x c - -o - -S -O1
.file ""
.text
.globl bar
.type bar, @function
bar:
.LFB1:
.cfi_startproc
#APP
# 1 "<stdin>" 1
#asdf
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE1:
.size bar, .-bar
.globl baz
.type baz, @function
baz:
.LFB2:
.cfi_startproc
#APP
# 1 "<stdin>" 1
#asdf
# 0 "" 2
# 1 "<stdin>" 1
#asdf
# 0 "" 2
#NO_APP
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE2:
.size baz, .-baz
.ident "GCC: (Debian 10.2.0-8) 10.2.0"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
