> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>
> >> That surely should be MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO instead. At _least_.
> >> You are triggering very much more inlining during early inlining now -
> >> I don't see
> >> where we did this for -Os already as you claim. In fact it is totally
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> That surely should be MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO instead. At _least_.
>> You are triggering very much more inlining during early inlining now -
>> I don't see
>> where we did this for -Os already as you claim. In fact it is totally
>> against
>
> That surely should be MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO instead. At _least_.
> You are triggering very much more inlining during early inlining now -
> I don't see
> where we did this for -Os already as you claim. In fact it is totally
> against the spirit of early inlining now :(
This is IPA inlining,
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch fixes first half of the PR. The PR is about a function that is
> supposed
> to be inlined at -O2. The function contains two calls, one indirect and
> inlining
> the indirect call makes things a lot better. GCC however thing
