From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20058 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2008 23:46:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 19769 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2008 23:46:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080303234603.19768.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/35262] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00192.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #14 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-03 23:46 ------- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check > Honza, I'm sorry, can you please double-check the fix? On my x86_64-linux > machines I'm not seeing any progress :( Hi, this is what I get from our thester: Differences: Tests that now work, but didn't before: abi_check so it ought to make differnece for i686-linux. It is quite possible that things differ on 64bit hosts, we are staying on quite fragile ground here because in the current cost metric the benefits of inlining are very close to costs. Given the nature that function call of the wrapped function is a bit chepaer than call of the wrapper is quite correct. The decision on whether function should be inlined or not depends on many things, like overall size, ABI details etc. I see it is quite irritating for ABI checking. I am sending it for testing for x86-64 now. Perhaps we can deal with this by checking ABI with -Os that is a bit less dependent on fine grained performance decision, like we are seeing here? Honza -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35262