--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-21 12:44
---
Just to note that for simple accestors (optimizing to single move), the
compiler should be smart enough to figure out that inlining always reduce code
size and inlining those will never hit any of the parameters me
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-21 05:35
---
No feedback in way over 3 months and the fact is there is still not a testcase
after being asked a couple of times. Second, we did maximize inlining
paramaters for -Os already once for 4.1.0.
--
pinskia at gcc
--- Comment #9 from msharov at hotmail dot com 2005-11-21 16:25 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Depends on which C++ developers and if they have really thought about all
> their
> uses of inline (most have not even though they say they want functions
> declared
> as inline to be inlined
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 16:06 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I'm pretty sure that if you run a poll of all the C++
> programmers, they'll tell you that they expect the former to always be inlined
> in an optimized build, while the latter ought to depen
--- Comment #7 from msharov at hotmail dot com 2005-11-21 16:01 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> This is not something that should cause -Werror to refuse compilation.
Well, according to the manpage, -Werror treats _all_ warnings as fatal, no
matter what they are about. Since -Winline is
--- Comment #6 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 15:49
---
Subject: Re: -Os should maximize inlining --param
values.
I didn't say the compiler shouldn't say anything, I said it shouldn't be
fatal. Regardless of whether or not you think the limits are too low,
ot
--- Comment #5 from msharov at hotmail dot com 2005-11-21 15:34 ---
I would disagree. If the compiler ends up creating a function call where I
expect a simple movl, that _is_ something I want to hear about as a warning. I
have some code that uses inlines in really tight loops and having
--- Comment #4 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 15:19
---
It seems to me that the problem here is that a 'warning' is too strong here,
particularly with -Werror. We really need a diagnostic that is non-fatal to
the compilation, since there's nothing really wrong with the
--- Comment #3 from msharov at hotmail dot com 2005-11-21 15:07 ---
By its very nature, demonstrating the problem requires a large example, so I am
unable to provide a sufficiently compact one to post here. You can, however,
download the project I'm having problems with from SourceForge
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 01:36 ---
Do you have an example of where the params get in the way?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
