> On Sep 13, 2018, at 2:06 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> With LTO "static" is too blurry - would -finline-only-hidden be OK
>>> with you?
>>
>> This doesn't sound right - in non-pic, everything is hidden, effectively.
>> And the intended use is with Linux kernel, which does not use -fpic.
>>
>> I agree with LTO this option makes less sense, but I wouldn't expect LTO
>> to be used for livepatching-capable kernels.
>
> The issue is that with LTO this option probably cannot be reliably
> implemented (well, I guess we could stick 'noinline' attributes
> onto all non-static declared functions…).
currently, I am using
callee->externally_visible
i.e.:
/* Set when function is visible by other units. */
unsigned externally_visible : 1;
to distinguish whether the function is static (visible ONLY inside the file) or
global (visible by other files)
if externally_visible is TRUE and the option -finline-only-static is specified,
disable the inlining.
>
> Btw, what about
>
> inline T foo() {}
>
> in C99?
for this case, foo is not visible outside of the file? right?
the current implementation based on externally_visible can correctly treat this
routine as “static” (visible ONLY inside the file), and inline the call to foo.
this seems the correct behavior.
> Those are not declared static (in fact there may be
> extern T foo () declarations somewhere). I also think we
> have to continue to inline always-inline functions.
for always-inline functions, if they are NOT static, I think that the option
-finline-no-static should NOT inline them for help hot-patching purpose.
>
> That is, is it really "-fimplicit-inline-only-static"? Would
> it make more sense to have a -fno-implicit-inline switch which
> will not inline any function that is not declared inline?
not quite understand this, why adding “implicit”?
the new option -finline-no-static will control inlining of functions with or
without “declared inline”.
thanks.
Qing
> That might be already available via -fno-inline-small-functions
> [-fno-inline-functions].
>
> Richard.
