On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > 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)
Yeah, I was suggesting -fno-inline-small-functions which would get you to do it the Linus-way (do-what-I-say) and only inline 'inline' declared functions. Richard.
