public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/40874] Function object abstraction penalty with inline functions.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:33:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090728213334.12588.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-40874-501@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-07-28 21:33 -------
I can confirm that if we schedule pass_ccp right after pass_sra_early,
g gets inlined.  Moreover, if we schedule one more pass_forwprop right
afterwards, even the testcase for PR 3713, comment #12 gets optimized
as it should :-)

So, like with PR 3713, we either have to schedule ccp or add some
specific pattern matching to the inlining preparation phase.  I guess
that people will find running one more ccp and fwprop unacceptable and
so some pattern matching will have to be done anyway for the other PR
(and we already do some awkward stuff like that for indirect member
pointer calls).  Perhaps we can match both, this one would be very
easy.  (Or is scheduling the two extra passes an option?)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40874


  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-07-28 21:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-27 15:06 [Bug c++/40874] New: Function object abstraction penalty dave at boost-consulting dot com
2009-07-27 15:36 ` [Bug tree-optimization/40874] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-27 15:45 ` [Bug tree-optimization/40874] Function object abstraction penalty with inline functions pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-27 16:26 ` dave at boost-consulting dot com
2009-07-27 17:57 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2009-07-28 11:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-28 18:42 ` dave at boost-consulting dot com
2009-07-28 19:39 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2009-07-28 21:33 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2009-07-29  8:06 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-07-29  8:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-29  8:09 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2009-07-29  8:12 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2009-07-29 10:17 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-29 10:57 ` rguenther at suse dot de
     [not found] <bug-40874-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-05-23 14:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-23 15:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

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=20090728213334.12588.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).