On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 01:03:01PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > I think auto_inline and inline would be just confusing, even in the > > > negative > > > forms. We actually "auto-inline" even functions not declared inline, just > > > with different heuristics. > > > > But inline __attribute__((feeble_inline)) is exactly 'auto-inline', no? > > No. inline is that 'auto-inline' (with the meaning, do what IPA does with > DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P right now, use it as a hint to inline stuff, higher > limits and the like). > inline __attribute__((feeble_inline)) is that 'default', i.e. for IPA > purposes handle it as if it wasn't explicitly inline. Except that the FE > do what they should do with any inline, e.g. make it comdat, for constexpr > constexpr, handle static variables in those specially, ...
OK, then it's just notational difference. auto-inline to me is applied to everything _not_ declared inline while 'inline' has alternate cost metrics. Aka "auto-inline" makes GCC add "inline". Oh, there's -finline-functions which is enabling this "auto-inline", keyed on whether a function is declared inline. Does feeble_inline also "undo" 'inline' to the level requiring -finline-functions to consider a function as inline candidate? (I know it's not _that_ simple, given -finline-functions-called-once considers not inline declared functions as well, likewise -finline-small-functions, cf. --param early-inlining-insns). Richard. > Jakub > > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstrasse 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich; (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
