On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 08:42:27PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > So, where do we want to do that instead? E.g. should it be e.g. in
>> > tree_versionable_function_p directly and let the inlin
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 08:42:27PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > So, where do we want to do that instead? E.g. should it be e.g. in
> > tree_versionable_function_p directly and let the inliner (if it doesn't do
> > already) also treat optimize(0) funct
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:20:05PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Using !!optimize to determine if we should switch local ABI to regparm
> > > convention isn't compatible with optimize attribute, as !!optimize is
> > > whether the current function is
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Using !!optimize to determine if we should switch local ABI to regparm
> > convention isn't compatible with optimize attribute, as !!optimize is
> > whether the current function is being optimized, but for the ABI decisions
> > we actua
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Using !!optimize to determine if we should switch local ABI to regparm
> convention isn't compatible with optimize attribute, as !!optimize is
> whether the current function is being optimized, but for the ABI decisions
> we actually need the cal
