public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/47663] Very simple wrapper not inlined Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:20:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-47663-4-1ZZnwtuXw0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-47663-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47663 Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed| |2011.02.09 16:11:54 Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-09 16:11:54 UTC --- It's actually not that simple as we have to match the caller / callee side of costs to not run into negative limits. We could disregard returns in registers completely or account for the cost (benefit) by not accounting the return statement at all. It would at least be nice to have a way to positively bias inlining of struct X { ...large... } foo(); at a call-site that does not use the return value. Currently call-sites that do use the return value get a benefit as well (independent of, for example, if the return slot is passed by reference). Not handling the return type at all would at least remove that false benefit accounting.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-09 16:12 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2011-02-09 15:52 [Bug middle-end/47663] New: " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-09 16:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2011-02-10 13:08 ` [Bug middle-end/47663] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-22 14:28 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06 8:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-06 10:11 ` 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=bug-47663-4-1ZZnwtuXw0@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).