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.


  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: 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).