From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-419701-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 42366 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2016 14:20:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 40772 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jan 2016 14:20:17 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz
Received: from nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (HELO nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.20.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:20:16 +0000
Received: by nikam.ms.mff.cuni.cz (Postfix, from userid 16202)	id 6B76B541677; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:20:11 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:20:00 -0000
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>,	GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Restore cross-language inlining into Ada
Message-ID: <20160121142011.GA60154@kam.mff.cuni.cz>
References: <9690839.xiTXAUyZ0b@polaris> <CAFiYyc3r0-3hTfB92huJ48C=yGosMFaPuXyg170_H5ZBZWEUbA@mail.gmail.com> <20160121141352.GB12209@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <CAFiYyc25MQZoZYEbRRNGRiaHn1o1=2zWYmr=UHm4111fqrnaeQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFiYyc25MQZoZYEbRRNGRiaHn1o1=2zWYmr=UHm4111fqrnaeQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg01631.txt.bz2

> >
> > Well, it is a while since I looked deeper into EH code, but if I remember
> > correctly we have EH region associated with statements and the non-call
> > exceptions do not have EH region that is taken by EH code as an information
> > that the statement was proved to not throw? In that case inlining could be
> > safe, if the inlined statements are not placed in EH region (I think inliner
> > does that)
> >
> > So perhaps this inlining is always safe?
> 
> That's what I think.
OK, as far as I can tell, Eric introduced the check in 
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01822.html

I am fine with it being relaxed and permitting inlining !non_call_exceptions to
non_call_exceptions functions..  It would be also cool to have a testcases.

Honza