------- Comment #4 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-02-21 12:58 ------- (In reply to comment #2)
> so it believes code size is unchanged by inlining the function twice > and removing the now unneeded out-of-line copy. So does that mean some cost factor needs to be tuned in the AVR target backend? (In reply to comment #3) > And indeed, for x86_64 we have > so with inlining the function twice text size is smaller than > without inlining. Which is not surprising for an i386-alike CPU. :-) I guess the major saving here is probably because it does not have to setup stack frames, while on the AVR target, stack frames are already omitted when not needed, so saving a function call doesn't save that much there. Also, the AVR target passes function arguments in registers. I guess targets like sparc64 would be better for comparision. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30908
