Re: java/1111: Order matters for inline candidates

[Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>]

The following reply was made to PR java/1111; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: java/1111: Order matters for inline candidates
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT)

 --- Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
 > From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:08:45 +0100
 > To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@one-point.com>
 > CC: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi@yahoo.com>,
 > <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
 > 	<java@gcc.gnu.org>
 > Subject: Re: Old Java PRs
 > 
 > Jeff Sturm writes:
 >  > On Mon, 12 May 2003, Andrew Haley wrote:
 >  > >  > Unless I misunderstand this PR, it is fixed
 > by the new inliner (except for
 >  > >  > the bytecode frontend, which still does not
 > emit whole functions as
 >  > >  > trees).
 >  > >
 >  > > It isn't.  The new inliner still will not
 > inline functions until they
 >  > > have been expanded.
 >  > 
 >  > Unfortunately the PR doesn't include a test case.
 >  
 >  > 
 >  > So it looks as though you're right, though I
 > could swear I've seen this
 >  > work before.  My understanding of the tree
 > inliner is that it does not
 >  > require expanding the inlined bodies to RTL, but
 > I don't remember the
 >  > details.
 > 
 > Given that I wrote the inliner, I do.  :-)
 > 
 > The problem is that binding contours for variables
 > are generated when
 > the functions are expanded.
 > 
 > Andrew.
 > 
 
 __________________________________
 Do you Yahoo!?
 The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
 http://search.yahoo.com