From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8974 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2011 10:34:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 8871 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jun 2011 10:34:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:34:32 +0000 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so3608800wwf.8 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 03:34:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.197.83 with SMTP id ej19mr3894081wbb.105.1307874870707; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 03:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.28.69 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jun 2011 03:34:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110610191500.GA14895@kam.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20110610184247.GA3252@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <20110610191500.GA14895@kam.mff.cuni.cz> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cgraph alias reorg 13/14 (disable inlining functions called once at -O0 From: Richard Guenther To: Jan Hubicka Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00932.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> > Hi, >> > by some mistake we enable functions called once at -O0 and it actually= happens from >> > time to time. >> >> Why do it for -O1? =A0It definitely makes debugging less reliable. =A0I'= d say do it >> for -O[23s] only. > > Well, that is what we did before. =A0I tought -O1 is mostly for optimizat= ions > that are not too expensive and usually win (rahter than about debugabilit= y of > the output) and I think this one counts here. =A0But I don't have very st= rong > optinions either way. I think we also suggested at some point that -O1 optimizations shouldn't interfere with debugging too much. But if it is what we did before it's certainly fi= ne. Richard. > Honza >