> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Qing Zhao wrote: > > The request is for application developers who want to use gcc's online > > patching feature. > > > > Today, developers can turn off inlining and deliver just the patched > > routine. They > > can also allow all inlining and deliver the patched routine and all the > > routines > > that the patched routine was inlined into. > > > > completely turning off inlining will sacrifice too much run-time > > performance. completely > > enable inlining, on the other hand, will have the potential issues with > > code size, complexity and > > debuggability for the online patching. > > > > the proposed option provides a compromised solution for the above issues. > > and enable more > > developers to utilize gcc’s online patching feature. > > From this explanation it sounds to me that what you really need is -Os-like > behavior for IPA passes, without enabling -Os for gimple/rtl passes, as I > mentioned in my previous email. Honza, how does that sound?
How -Os is related? We will still do things like inlining or cloning of functions if we expect code size to decrease (that may happen if arguments become dead) Honza > > > > If the original issue is that inlining duplicates code, wouldn't it be > > > better > > > solved by a switch that instructs inlining heuristics to inline as if for > > > -Os, > > > without enabling -Os for other passes? > > Alexander
