On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-inline.c b/gcc/tree-inline.c
index 5aa782b..7e9ed99 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-inline.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-inline.c
@@ -4109,6 +4109,9 @@ estimate_num_insns (gimple *stmt, eni_weights *weights)
with very long asm statements. */
if (count > 1000)
count = 1000;
+ /* If this asm is asm inline, count anything as minimum size. */
+ if (gimple_asm_inline_p (as_a <gasm *> (stmt)))
+ count = !!count;
return MAX (1, count);
}
Hello,
what is the point of !!count when we take the max with 1 on the very
next line? Is it in prevision of a time when we may remove the MAX? (sorry
if this was covered in previous iterations)
By the way, not related to the patch, but I wonder why we cannot have a
cost of 0. My main use of inline asm is as an optimization barrier:
asm("":"+gx"(local_var))
possibly marked volatile to prevent more optimizations. I certainly
expect it to generate exactly 0 instruction in most cases. Although if I
am not careful it could easily generate moves from x87 to sse/memory for
instance. I guess a minimal cost is safer and doesn't affect decisions too
badly.
--
Marc Glisse
