https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #12 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #9) > Actually, there is one detail. Cloning SCC and keeping it a SCC is cool > thing (as one avoid passing constant parameter across the recursive loop), > but clonning function from SCC and keeping all calls within the connected > component to go to the original SCC is not cool. It would be nice to make > difference between these. I understand. I have actually spent most of Monday trying to do this at least for the simple cases. However, I quickly found out simple hacks did not work and more serious attempts quickly snowballed into big patches I that I might not finish soon and might not be deemed reasonable for stage4. We basically really need to be able to roll-back all decisions taken when evaluating an SCC. In the long run, I agree we certainly want to limit or disallow completely cloning that would leave calls to the original functions of an SCC.
