RECOULES"
Cc: "Richard Biener" , "gcc" ,
"mjambor"
Envoyé: Samedi 14 Mars 2020 18:34:38
Objet: Re: Thought on inlining indirect function calls
> > I think it is because during early opts we do not know if f is not
> > modified by atoi call and at IPA ti
: "gcc" , "FRÉDÉRIC RECOULES"
> , mjam...@suse.cz
> Envoyé: Samedi 14 Mars 2020 14:05:07
> Objet: Re: Thought on inlining indirect function calls
>
> > >I was pretty disappointed to see that even if the compiler knows we are
> > >calling
not supported, it is?
Frédéric Recoules
- Mail original -
De: "Jan Hubicka"
À: "Richard Biener"
Cc: "gcc" , "FRÉDÉRIC RECOULES"
, mjam...@suse.cz
Envoyé: Samedi 14 Mars 2020 14:05:07
Objet: Re: Thought on inlining indirect function calls
> >I was pretty disappointed to see that even if the compiler knows we are
> >calling f_add, it doesn't inline the call (it ends up with "call
> >f_add").
>
> It's probably because we know it's only called once and thus not performance
> relevant. Try put it into a loop.
I think it is because d
"FRÉDÉRIC RECOULES"
Envoyé: Samedi 14 Mars 2020 12:12:15
Objet: Re: Thought on inlining indirect function calls
On March 14, 2020 10:55:09 AM GMT+01:00, "FRÉDÉRIC RECOULES"
wrote:
>Hello the GCC community,
>I just want to share some thoughts on inlining a function even
On March 14, 2020 10:55:09 AM GMT+01:00, "FRÉDÉRIC RECOULES"
wrote:
>Hello the GCC community,
>I just want to share some thoughts on inlining a function even if
>it is called through a function pointer.
>My starting point is the version 9.2 (used at https://godbolt.org/),
>so I am sorry if someth
