------- Comment #17 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-03-04 11:04 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Sorry, I had two versions of patch and managed to commit the wrong copy.
> Sent correct one to ML. It should be fixed now.
Indeed, it's fixed! Many, many thanks!
> The point I wanted to make is that inliner when knowing to be inlining a
> cold call (because it was hinted so by __builtin_expect) is correctly a
> lot more sellective. Basically anything that expands to function call
> and some extra code around is a loss for code size inlining.
I see now. I was missing the cold call (__builtin_expect) specifics. Thanks for
the explanation.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35262
