[Bug c/29782] New: Incorrect inlining failure

[Bug c/29782] New: Incorrect inlining failure

[takis at issaris dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5125 bytes --]

GCC sometimes does not inline code claiming the function has grown to large,
while inlining it would have _decreased_ the codesize.

For example, the following block of code, will result in read_time being
inlined:
#include <stdio.h>
static inline long long read_time(void) {
        long long l;
        asm volatile(   "rdtsc\n\t"
                : "=A" (l)
        );
        return l;
}
int main()
{
    long long l = read_time();
    printf("%Ld\n", l);
}

The following block will not inline read_time:
#include <stdio.h>
static __attribute__ ((noinline)) long long read_time(void) {
        long long l;
        asm volatile(   "rdtsc\n\t"
                : "=A" (l)
        );
        return l;
}
int main() {
    long long l = read_time();
    printf("%Ld\n", l);
}

As read_time is really small, its codesize will always be smaller if it gets
inlined. Nonetheless, in some cases the compiler gives a warning that the code
has grown to large, and that it will _disable_ inlining because of this:
"warning: inlining failed in call to ‘read_time’: --param large-function-growth
limit reached"

This seems wrong to me as the non-inlined code would be larger then the inlined
code.

Compiling it with:
gcc -c -I. -fomit-frame-pointer -g -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wall
-Wno-switch -Wdisabled-optimization -Wpointer-arith -Wredundant-decls
-Winline -O3  rdtsc.c

Shows that the inlined version is indeed smaller:
size inlinerdtsc.o 
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
     51       0       0      51      33 inlinerdtsc.o
size rdtsc.o 
   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
     68       0       0      68      44 rdtsc.o

I do not think it is specific to this short block of code, as
the generated assembly shows rdtsc being only 2 bytes long, while
the call instruction by itself already occupies 5 bytes:

Not inlined:
00000000 <read_time>:
   0:   0f 31                   rdtsc  
   2:   c3                      ret    
   3:   8d b6 00 00 00 00       lea    0x0(%esi),%esi
   9:   8d bc 27 00 00 00 00    lea    0x0(%edi),%edi

00000010 <main>:
  10:   8d 4c 24 04             lea    0x4(%esp),%ecx
  14:   83 e4 f0                and    $0xfffffff0,%esp
  17:   ff 71 fc                pushl  0xfffffffc(%ecx)
  1a:   51                      push   %ecx
  1b:   83 ec 18                sub    $0x18,%esp
  1e:   e8 dd ff ff ff          call   0 <read_time>
  23:   c7 04 24 00 00 00 00    movl   $0x0,(%esp)
  2a:   89 44 24 04             mov    %eax,0x4(%esp)
  2e:   89 54 24 08             mov    %edx,0x8(%esp)
  32:   e8 fc ff ff ff          call   33 <main+0x23>
  37:   83 c4 18                add    $0x18,%esp
  3a:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  3c:   59                      pop    %ecx
  3d:   8d 61 fc                lea    0xfffffffc(%ecx),%esp
  40:   c3                      ret    

Inlined:
00000000 <main>:
   0:   8d 4c 24 04             lea    0x4(%esp),%ecx
   4:   83 e4 f0                and    $0xfffffff0,%esp
   7:   ff 71 fc                pushl  0xfffffffc(%ecx)
   a:   51                      push   %ecx
   b:   83 ec 18                sub    $0x18,%esp
   e:   0f 31                   rdtsc  
  10:   89 44 24 04             mov    %eax,0x4(%esp)
  14:   89 54 24 08             mov    %edx,0x8(%esp)
  18:   c7 04 24 00 00 00 00    movl   $0x0,(%esp)
  1f:   e8 fc ff ff ff          call   20 <main+0x20>
  24:   83 c4 18                add    $0x18,%esp
  27:   31 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  29:   59                      pop    %ecx
  2a:   8d 61 fc                lea    0xfffffffc(%ecx),%esp
  2d:   c3                      ret    

Does GCC just disable all inlining as soon as a certain limit in codesize is
reached? Or does it actually try to determine whether inlining will increase or
decrease the codesize? If so, is an heuristic used or an exact calculation (if
possible)? If an heuristic is used, what is the heuristic?

Thanks for any reply! :)

System info:
* Ubuntu Edgy Eft 6.10
* Linux issaris 2.6.17-10-generic #2 SMP Fri Oct 13 18:45:35 UTC 2006 i686
GNU/Linux
* Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz
* Compiler:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i486-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++,treelang --prefix=/usr
--enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
--without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls
--program-suffix=-4.1 --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-mpfr --enable-checking=release i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.2 20060928 (prerelease) (Ubuntu 4.1.1-13ubuntu5)

With friendly regards,
Takis


-- 
           Summary: Incorrect inlining failure
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: takis at issaris dot org
 GCC build triplet: i486-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i486-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i486-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782

[Bug c/29782] Incorrect inlining failure

[takis at issaris dot org]

------- Comment #1 from takis at issaris dot org  2006-11-09 16:31 -------
Created an attachment (id=12577)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12577&action=view)
Call a function and recommend to inline it


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782

[Bug c/29782] Incorrect inlining failure

[takis at issaris dot org]

------- Comment #2 from takis at issaris dot org  2006-11-09 16:32 -------
Created an attachment (id=12578)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12578&action=view)
Call a function and disallow inlining it


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782

[Bug middle-end/29782] Incorrect inlining failure

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-11-09 17:10 -------
It has a heuristic to tell the result in code-size difference.  Of course no
heuristic is perfect - see tree-inline.c:estimate_num_insns().


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782

[Bug middle-end/29782] Incorrect inlining failure

[takis at issaris dot org]

------- Comment #4 from takis at issaris dot org  2006-11-09 17:28 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> It has a heuristic to tell the result in code-size difference.  Of course no
> heuristic is perfect - see tree-inline.c:estimate_num_insns().
Ofcourse! Thanks for your reply!

So, I guess that if I were to move ASM_EXPR to the list of zero cost cases, GCC
would always inline my code. I'll see if this works. Thanks again! :)

Still, I think it is weird I'm seeing this behavior, as with my untrained eyes,
it seems as if inline assembly would only get 1 assigned as cost, while a
function call probably costs 4+something (I guess from estimate_move_cost()
although it can also return another value of which I am currently not capable
of determining the value). This would mean inlining of functions containing
only inline assembly blocks would always succeed, right? Hmm... Unless the else
in estimate_move_cost() can return 0 or 1 in some cases.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782

[Bug middle-end/29782] Incorrect inlining failure

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-11-09 17:31 -------
Can you give your full testcase as right now the above testcases don't show
what your code looks like and why we are reaching the large-function-growth
limit.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782

[Bug middle-end/29782] Incorrect inlining failure

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-04-08 23:46 -------
No real testcase in over 3 months so closing.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29782