Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-02-01 Thread Roland McGrath
> Want me to prepare a s/-fno-inline-functions/-fno-inline/ patch? My reading was that actually we would want both of those switches (the first to avoid inlining as an implicit optimization, the second to avoid inlining of functions declared inline). But whatever the exact detail, yes, please sen

Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-02-01 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jan 31, 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> What's probably confusing you is the "Don't pay attention to the >> @code{inline} keyword" sentence. > > What really set me down the wrong patch were the comments in > gcc/common.opt, that got m

Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-01-31 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jan 31, 2012, Roland McGrath wrote: > I think we can do that right away without trouble, and get it onto > release branches too. *nod* Want me to prepare a s/-fno-inline-functions/-fno-inline/ patch? > On the libc side more generally, I've become skeptical that the generic C > version of in

Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-01-31 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Jan 31, 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > What's probably confusing you is the "Don't pay attention to the > @code{inline} keyword" sentence. What really set me down the wrong patch were the comments in gcc/common.opt, that got me the idea it had something to do with C99 inline. ; Nonzero mean

Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-01-31 Thread Ryan S. Arnold
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Roland McGrath wrote: > > From Richard's response it sounds like there is an easy fix that's > compatible with both old and new GCC (-fno-inline).  I think we can do that > right away without trouble, and get it onto release branches too. > > On the libc side more

Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-01-31 Thread Roland McGrath
>From Richard's response it sounds like there is an easy fix that's compatible with both old and new GCC (-fno-inline). I think we can do that right away without trouble, and get it onto release branches too. On the libc side more generally, I've become skeptical that the generic C version of ini

Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-01-31 Thread Richard Guenther
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > glibc 2.15 won't build with GCC 4.7ish on ppc64: -fno-inline-functions > is no longer enough to prevent call_gmon_start from being inlined into > initfini.c's _init, as required by glibc's somewhat convoluted > compilation of initfini.c int

-fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini

2012-01-30 Thread Alexandre Oliva
glibc 2.15 won't build with GCC 4.7ish on ppc64: -fno-inline-functions is no longer enough to prevent call_gmon_start from being inlined into initfini.c's _init, as required by glibc's somewhat convoluted compilation of initfini.c into crt*.o. As a result of the inlining, a branch and its target l