> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> This patch works passed profiledbootstrap with LTO as well as LTO -O3
> >> on 176.gcc in SPEC CPU 2000. I have to add 2 inline_edge_summary_vec
> >> checks to avoid ICE. OK to install?
> >
> > Thanks, it looks good. I am just concerned about...
> >> diff --git a/gcc/ipa-split.c b/gcc/ipa-split.c
> >> index 33cf7d2..7a8844f 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/ipa-split.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/ipa-split.c
> >> @@ -1415,7 +1415,7 @@ execute_split_functions (void)
> >> }
> >> /* This can be relaxed; function might become inlinable after splitting
> >> away the uninlinable part. */
> >> - if (!inline_summary (node)->inlinable)
> >> + if (inline_edge_summary_vec && !inline_summary (node)->inlinable)
> >
> > .. this one. spliting is executed before free_inline_summary and thus should
> > not be affected. Or is it because of it gets called from
> > process_new_functions
> > because some IPA pass adds a new function?
>
> It is called from pass_feedback_split_functions:
>
> NEXT_PASS (pass_all_early_optimizations);
> {
> ...
> }
> NEXT_PASS (pass_ipa_free_inline_summary);
> NEXT_PASS (pass_ipa_tree_profile);
> {
> struct opt_pass **p = &pass_ipa_tree_profile.pass.sub;
> NEXT_PASS (pass_feedback_split_functions);
> }
>
> OK to install?
Hmm, this is an ordering issue, but minnor one. OK.
As comment says, this should be relaxed anyway and in fact I have path for that
in queue.
Honza
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> H.J.
