From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20810 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2008 07:04:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 20528 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2008 07:03:53 -0000 Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080304070353.20527.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/msg00209.txt.bz2 ------- 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