https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31362
stefan.tauner at gmx dot at changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||stefan.tauner at gmx dot at
--- Comment #19 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-27 14:44 ---
I guess I need a bigger typeface because I don't see where it says
'(the out-of-line copy)'.
Or, perhaps, you've simply added that '(the out-of-line copy)'
annotation yourself because that's what the code currently does,
--- Comment #18 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-27 14:22
---
Well, you can continue to waste your time arguing here instead of fixing your
code
with a few additions of noinline.
'The `section' attribute specifies that
a function lives in a particular sect
--- Comment #17 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-27 13:49 ---
In response to comment #16:
I wouldn't call an inliner which inlines functions specifically marked as "do
not put this in '.text'" as 'smart'. I'd use a more pejorative adjective, such
as 'broken' or 'dumb'.
--
http
--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 21:21
---
You supposed to mark all functions which you don't want inlined as noinline.
that is what the noinline attribute is there for. The inliner is just too
smart that is all. If you want a dumber inliner fine, but do
--- Comment #15 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-03-26 20:22
---
FWIW, I agree with the OP. This will place a burden on users who work with
embedded systems such as the AVR. Special sections are sometimes needed in the
AVR to place code into a special bootloader area that
--- Comment #14 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-26 18:54 ---
> Why do you think sections are special?
> GCC does not know if a section is special or not and it really should not
> know.
I don't necessarily think that sections are 'special', but since gcc
has the capability to chan
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 18:10
---
Why do you think sections are special?
GCC does not know if a section is special or not and it really should not know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31362
--- Comment #12 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-26 17:46 ---
I respectfully submit that I think you guys are missing the point.
The problem isn't that the compiler is inlining functions which
are called once, the problem is that the compiler is inlining a
function which
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 17:02
---
4.1.2 also inlines the other one, so that won't help. Still noinline will.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31362
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 16:58
---
And now there is already an option to stop this inlining static functions
called once.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-finline_002dfunctions_002dcalled_002donce-507
--
pinskia at g
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 16:28 ---
We inline static functions used once (special_function_0 in your testcase)
starting with the tree inliner which appeared in 3.4.0. So the "bug" is
present
in all releases starting from 3.4.0 and still present in mai
--- Comment #8 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-26 15:57 ---
Furthermore,
4. By placing the code in a different section, I'm instructing the
the compiler to *not* put it in '.text'. By inlining it, it
places it in '.text' despite my instructions.
--
http://g
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 15:51 ---
Note that for your testcase even if you specify the noinline attribute the
function calls will be optimized away as the function calls do not have
side-effects.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=313
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 15:47 ---
In the actual implementation from which this test case was derived,
the function *must* reside at a specific location in memory, but due
to the inlining, it does not. This causes failures in the
application.
You
--- Comment #5 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-26 15:40 ---
I'm going to argue that comment #4 is incorrect.
1. This new behavior is a regression from previous versions of gcc.
2. The 4.1.1 compiler gets it right at -O0 and -O3. Previous
versions of gcc which we've been usi
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 15:11 ---
If it is incorrect to inline a function you should specify that with
__attribute__((noinline)), I don't see why in general inlining a function which
out of line copy is in a special section is wrong.
--
rguenth a
--- Comment #3 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-26 15:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=13290)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13290&action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31362
--- Comment #2 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-26 15:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=13289)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13289&action=view)
original source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31362
--- Comment #1 from thutt at vmware dot com 2007-03-26 15:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=13288)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13288&action=view)
Simple Script which will build the original C source
Simple Script which will build the original C source
--
http
20 matches
Mail list logo
