On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 07:08, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
> Sure, but then you can still have the issue of an inconsistency.
Not if we make the edge attribute secondary to the statement
attribute. Given that can_inline_edge_p() is the *only* tester for
this attribute, what I was thinking was to change can_inline_edge_p()
to:
diff --git a/gcc/ipa-inline.c b/gcc/ipa-inline.c
index 3dadf8d..e3c6b3c 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-inline.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-inline.c
@@ -246,6 +246,14 @@ can_inline_edge_p (struct cgraph_edge *e, bool report)
struct function *caller_cfun = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (e->caller->decl);
struct function *callee_cfun
= callee ? DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (callee->decl) : NULL;
+ bool call_stmt_cannot_inline_p;
+
+ /* If E has a call statement in it, use the inline attribute from
+ the statement, otherwise use the inline attribute in E. Edges
+ will not have statements when working in WPA mode. */
+ call_stmt_cannot_inline_p = (e->call_stmt)
+ ? gimple_call_cannot_inline_p (e->call_stmt)
+ : e->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p;
if (!caller_cfun && e->caller->clone_of)
caller_cfun = DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (e->caller->clone_of->decl);
@@ -270,7 +278,7 @@ can_inline_edge_p (struct cgraph_edge *e, bool report)
e->inline_failed = CIF_OVERWRITABLE;
return false;
}
- else if (e->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p)
+ else if (call_stmt_cannot_inline_p)
{
e->inline_failed = CIF_MISMATCHED_ARGUMENTS;
inlinable = false;
@@ -343,14 +351,6 @@ can_inline_edge_p (struct cgraph_edge *e, bool report)
}
}
- /* Be sure that the cannot_inline_p flag is up to date. */
- gcc_checking_assert (!e->call_stmt
- || (gimple_call_cannot_inline_p (e->call_stmt)
- == e->call_stmt_cannot_inline_p)
- /* In -flto-partition=none mode we really keep
things out of
- sync because call_stmt_cannot_inline_p is
set at cgraph
- merging when function bodies are not there yet. */
- || (in_lto_p && !gimple_call_cannot_inline_p
(e->call_stmt)));
if (!inlinable && report)
report_inline_failed_reason (e);
return inlinable;
> Thus, would you then remove the remaining asserts?
The asserts disappear because we have weakened the meaning of the edge
attribute. It is only usable when there is no statement on it. The
question now is, how do we know that the attribute is not lying? This
only happens in WPA mode, so it would then become an issue of
pessimization, not correctness.
> I believe in the end the proper fix is to _not_ throw away
> cgraph edges all the time, but keep them up-to-date and thus
> make the stmt flag not necessary.
Make it a pure cgraph attribute? Sure, anything that gets rid of the
dual attribute is the way to go. There are not very many invocations
to the gimple attribute, but I don't know how big a change that is.
> Which pass did the folding of the stmt but did not adjust the
> edge flag?
The new call to gimple_call_set_cannot_inline added by this patch:
commit 3aa6ac67f5f7d3a6aabce9ada30e99e2a82c0114
Author: rguenth <rguenth@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4>
Date: Wed Nov 2 08:46:08 2011 +0000
2010-11-02 Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/50890
* gimple.h (gimple_fold_call): Remove.
* gimple-fold.c (fold_stmt_1): Move all call related code to ...
(gimple_fold_call): ... here. Make static. Update the
cannot-inline flag on direct calls.
* ipa-inline.c (early_inliner): Copy the cannot-inline flag
from the statements to the edges.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr50890.c: New testcase.
git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@180763
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Diego.
