On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nathan Chancellor
<natechancel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:45:35PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 1:32 PM Nathan Chancellor
> > <natechancel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:25:41PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > > > But I'm not sure how the inlined code generated would be affected.
> > >
> > > For the record:
> > >
> > > https://godbolt.org/z/z57VU7
> > >
> > > This seems consistent with what Michael found so I don't think a revert
> > > is entirely unreasonable.
> >
> > Thanks for debugging/reporting/testing and the Godbolt link which
> > clearly shows that the codegen for out of line versions is no
> > different. The case I can't comment on is what happens when those
> > `static inline` functions get inlined (maybe the original patch
> > improves those cases?).
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > ~Nick Desaulniers
>
> I'll try to build with various versions of GCC and compare the
> disassembly of the one problematic location that I found and see
> what it looks like.
Also, guess I should have included the tag:
Fixes: 6c5875843b87 ("powerpc: slightly improve cache helpers")
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
