From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-248355-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21998 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2009 15:26:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 21974 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Sep 2009 15:26:46 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cantor.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:26:41 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) 	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) 	(No client certificate requested) 	by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218A874609; 	Wed,  9 Sep 2009 17:26:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:26:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge from LTO: eh_personality changes
In-Reply-To: <4AA7C88B.7010907@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909091724590.28140@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909041532090.28140@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4AA293E4.8090301@redhat.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909051914110.28140@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4AA2A9D7.3030406@redhat.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909081435050.28140@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4AA67CD1.8020602@redhat.com>  <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909081801180.28140@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909091132590.28140@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4AA7C88B.7010907@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Richard Henderson wrote:

> On 09/09/2009 02:34 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > As we need the information to decide inlining it would be at least
> > an inconvenience to LTO to also read in (parts of) EH data in the
> > IPA phase.  So I'll leave that alone for now.
> 
> Given that IPA needs that EH data to actually perform the inlining,
> how is that an inconvenience?

The inlining plan is computed by just looking at the callgraph and
the sizes computed by the local information gathering.  We need to
reject cgraph edges which cross EH personality in this phase.  Only
at the time the inlining decisions are committed (again in a local
phase) we have the function bodies and EH data available.

Richard.