------- Comment #16 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-04 07:03 ------- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
> Note however, that the patch also didn't help Geoff's i686-linux tester, just > have a look to gcc-testresults. Sorry, I had two versions of patch and managed to commit the wrong copy. Sent correct one to ML. It should be fixed now. > > > I think we should not mix the two issues, here. The first issue is that, IMO, > the function we are discussing should be inlined, it's very small and we > always > inlined it until recently. The point I wanted to make is that inliner when knowing to be inlining a cold call (because it was hinted so by __builtin_expect) is correctly a lot more sellective. Basically anything that expands to function call and some extra code around is a loss for code size inlining. Honza -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35262
