> >
> > But then inlining / cloning is no longer cheap, no? And will be
> > disabled at -O2?
>
> If you declare it "inline" and not "static inline" it will be inlined pretty
> much as before, only it will get unified if it ends up out of line in multiple
> units.
>
> Main difference in between static and non-static is in logic deciding when
> inlining into all callers will lead to removing the offline copy from the
> program. This is controlable by comdat-sharing-probability parameter.
>
> We won't clone at -O2 unless we know code will shrink that may be something to
> revisit. I think it would be resonable to enable clonning at -O2 for
> functions
> declared inline.
>
> I was also playing with idea adding a GCC decision to function mangling, so
> comdat clones can be inlined. I.e. having something like
^^^^ inlined means unified by the comdat sharing
machinery.
Honza
> mangled_foo->mangled_foo.__gcc_cprop_clone.arg0_0.arg1_17 It would need to
> invent unique textual representations of all/most our substitutions that can
> get tricky.
>
> Honza
