public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/35262] [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:04:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080304070353.20527.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-35262-682@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
------- Comment #16 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-04 07:03 -------
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
> Note however, that the patch also didn't help Geoff's i686-linux tester, just
> have a look to gcc-testresults.
Sorry, I had two versions of patch and managed to commit the wrong copy.
Sent correct one to ML. It should be fixed now.
>
>
> I think we should not mix the two issues, here. The first issue is that, IMO,
> the function we are discussing should be inlined, it's very small and we always
> inlined it until recently.
The point I wanted to make is that inliner when knowing to be inlining a
cold call (because it was hinted so by __builtin_expect) is correctly a
lot more sellective. Basically anything that expands to function call
and some extra code around is a loss for code size inlining.
Honza
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35262
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-04 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-20 15:43 [Bug c++/35262] New: " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2008-02-20 15:51 ` [Bug c++/35262] " hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
2008-02-20 17:51 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-02-20 21:05 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-02-20 21:13 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-02-20 23:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-02-21 0:07 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-02-21 0:09 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-02-24 13:46 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-03-02 17:36 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-03-03 0:51 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-03-03 16:22 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-03 16:24 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-03 19:05 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-03-03 23:46 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2008-03-04 0:10 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
2008-03-04 7:04 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz [this message]
2008-03-04 11:05 ` pcarlini at suse dot de
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080304070353.20527.qmail@sourceware.org \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).