> Thanks for the fix. Is it ok to backport it to gcc-4_9?
Yes, it is OK assuming that there are no problems with the patch for a week.
(it ought to be safe)
Honza
Thanks for the fix. Is it ok to backport it to gcc-4_9?
Thanks,
Wei.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this is patch I commited to mainline
>
> 2014-11-22 Jan Hubicka
>
> * ipa.c (symbol_table::remove_unreachable_nodes): Mark all inline
> clones
> as
Hi,
this is patch I commited to mainline
2014-11-22 Jan Hubicka
* ipa.c (symbol_table::remove_unreachable_nodes): Mark all inline clones
as having abstract origin used.
* ipa-inline-transform.c (can_remove_node_now_p_1): Drop abstract
origin check.
(clone_inlin
Submit a bug here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63970
Wei.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On November 19, 2014 8:13:09 AM CET, Wei Mi wrote:
>>>We see an inline problem as below caused by r201
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On November 19, 2014 8:13:09 AM CET, Wei Mi wrote:
>>We see an inline problem as below caused by r201408
>>(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00027.html).
>>
>>hoo() {
>> foo();
>> ...
>>}
>>
>>foo {
>> goo();
>> ...
>>}
>>
On November 19, 2014 8:13:09 AM CET, Wei Mi wrote:
>We see an inline problem as below caused by r201408
>(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00027.html).
>
>hoo() {
> foo();
> ...
>}
>
>foo {
> goo();
> ...
>}
>
>foo is func splitted, so its body changes to
>
>foo {
> goo();
> ...
We see an inline problem as below caused by r201408
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00027.html).
hoo() {
foo();
...
}
foo {
goo();
...
}
foo is func splitted, so its body changes to
foo {
goo();
...
foo.part();
}
and the used_as_abstract_origin of cgraph node of fo
