From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28114 invoked by alias); 12 May 2003 18:27:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19510 invoked by uid 71); 12 May 2003 18:26:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 18:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030512182601.19490.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: apbianco@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Dara Hazeghi Subject: Re: java/1111: Order matters for inline candidates Reply-To: Dara Hazeghi X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01272.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR java/1111; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dara Hazeghi 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 wrote: > From: Andrew Haley > Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:08:45 +0100 > To: Jeff Sturm > CC: Dara Hazeghi , > , > > 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