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 tree-optimization/33763] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Bogus inlining failed in call to `xxx': redefined extern inline functions are not considered for inlining
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-33763-4-K2mB2YOLrZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-33763-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33763
--- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> 2011-03-05 12:45:29 UTC ---
> I don't think this is the desired behavior (nor is it documented). If it is
> then we should simply drop the always-inline attribute when merging the
> function decls (basically throw away the inline definition).
Well, the desired behaviour IMO is to get one body for inline copies, other
body for offline copy (this is also only consistent interpretation with LTO.
Current way of inlining them early and then droppipng is bit weird). This is
quite easy to do at cgraph level once frontend is able to produce both function
bodies at two different declarations (one static inline, other external) tells
so to the backend.
No one volunteed to do this at frontend side yet :(
Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-05 12:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-33763-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-03-04 12:37 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-05 12:45 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz [this message]
2011-03-11 22:16 ` pthaugen at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-06-27 14:51 ` [Bug tree-optimization/33763] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-12 13:44 ` [Bug c/33763] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-12 14:24 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2012-01-12 14:28 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2012-01-12 14:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-12 14:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-12 14:38 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2012-01-12 14:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-12 14:54 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-13 9:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-13 15:27 ` [Bug c/33763] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-02 11:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-09 15:04 ` [Bug c/33763] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " dschepler at gmail dot com
2012-07-09 15:41 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-05 11:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-05 11:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-05 12:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-11 21:27 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-11 21:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-20 22:15 ` kaltsi+gnu at gmail dot com
2013-09-20 22:21 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-20 22:25 ` kaltsi+gnu at gmail dot com
2007-10-13 19:15 [Bug tree-optimization/33763] New: [4.1/4.2/4.3 " jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 18:20 ` [Bug tree-optimization/33763] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot 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=bug-33763-4-K2mB2YOLrZ@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: 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).