https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #14 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #13)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> > Gcc does have tail call optimization which should allow the instrumentation
> > with less overhead. Though
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> Gcc does have tail call optimization which should allow the instrumentation
> with less overhead. Though tail call optimization happens at -O2 and above
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski ---
Gcc does have tail call optimization which should allow the instrumentation
with less overhead. Though tail call optimization happens at -O2 and above only
(by default).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #11 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10)
> (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #9)
> > I also wondered whether
> >
> > int bar_alias (void) { return bar_original(); }
> >
> > could be a portable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #9 from Lukas Grätz ---
Thanks for everything, it seemed to be a misunderstanding from my side anyway
and the documentation fix should help others.
I am sorry for being silent, I was sick for a few days. As for my original
problem,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ffbd7c3d0fd1b9b10ef5a0f2b2e64bd234620167
commit r14-4404-gffbd7c3d0fd1b9b10ef5a0f2b2e64bd234620167
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #4 from Lukas Grätz ---
Sorry, just to clarify, whether I understood your two comments correctly.
Should foo() be inlined in the following example because flatten works
recursively?
void foo (void) {
// CODE
}
int bar_original
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Grätz ---
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > I am 99% sure this is falls under don't do this as flatten inlines
> > everything it can that the function calls ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111643
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |ipa
CC|
14 matches
Mail list logo