public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/111643] __attribute__((flatten)) with -O1 runs out of memory (killed cc1) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 00:53:15 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-111643-4-GEI937d1LL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-111643-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643 --- Comment #4 from Lukas Grätz <lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de> --- Sorry, just to clarify, whether I understood your two comments correctly. Should foo() be inlined in the following example because flatten works recursively? void foo (void) { // CODE } int bar_original (void) { // CODE foo(); // CODE } __attribute__((flatten)) int bar (void) { // INSTRUMENTATION CAN GO HERE return bar_original(); } I thought that according to the documentation of flatten, foo() would not be affected by the flatten attribute of bar(). It says: "For a function marked with this attribute, every call inside this function is inlined, if possible." The call to foo() is not directly inside the function bar(). Only if bar_original() had also the __attribute__((flatten)), I would expect foo() to be made inline in bar() because of recursive flatten. Of course, it could still be inlined because some heuristics...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-01 0:53 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-09-29 19:49 [Bug c/111643] New: " lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de 2023-09-29 19:52 ` [Bug ipa/111643] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-29 20:39 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-09-30 6:19 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de 2023-10-01 0:53 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de [this message] 2023-10-01 1:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-04 9:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-05 8:26 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-05 9:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-06 16:34 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de 2023-10-06 16:45 ` amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-06 21:31 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.de 2023-10-06 21:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-06 21:40 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-10-06 22:03 ` lukas.graetz@tu-darmstadt.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=bug-111643-4-GEI937d1LL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --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: linkBe 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).