On Mon, 12 Jun 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > > > On 05/06/2023 04:04, Jan Hubicka wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> This is a follow-up of the internal function patch to add widening and > >>> narrowing patterns. This patch improves the inliner cost estimation for > >>> internal functions. > >> > >> I have no idea why calls are special in IPA analyze_function_body > >> and so I cannot say whether treating all internal fn calls as > >> non-calls is correct there. Honza? > > > > The reason is that normal statements are acconted as part of the > > function body, while calls have their costs attached to call edges > > (so it can be adjusted when call is inlined to otherwise optimized). > > > > However since internal functions have no cgraph edges, this looks like > > a bug that we do not test it. (the code was written before internal > > calls was introduced). > > > > This sounds to me like you agree with my approach to treat internal calls > different to regular calls. > > > I wonder if we don't want to have is_noninternal_gimple_call that could > > be used by IPA code to test whether cgraph edge should exist for > > the statement. > > I'm happy to add such a helper function @richi,rsandifo: you ok with that?
It's a bit of an ugly name, if we want something that keys on calls that have an edge it should be obvious it does this. I wouldn't add is_noninternal_gimple_call. With LTO and libgcc and internal optab fns it's also less obvious in cases we want to have say .DIVMODDI3 (...) which in the end maps to a LTOed libcall from libgcc.a ... Richard.
