llvm dev - Jan 2019 - With -flto, is manual inline unnecessary?

Hi,

With LTO, it seems that compilers should have the information to
decide whether to inline a function or not. In this case, is it
unnecessary to specify functions as inline in C/C++ code?

-- 
Regards,
Peng

The inline keyword is a hint. The inliner calculates the cost of inlining a
function using various heuristics. If the cost is too high it won't be
inlined. The inline keyword increases the threshold that is considered too
costly.

~Craig


On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Peng Yu via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With LTO, it seems that compilers should have the information to
> decide whether to inline a function or not. In this case, is it
> unnecessary to specify functions as inline in C/C++ code?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Peng
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190118/25a72080/attachment.html>

To follow on to Craig's note about it being a hint, note that the inline
keyword is largely there to adjust the linkage type of the symbol so that
it can be defined in a header without getting multiply defined symbol
errors, and to allow it to be elided by the compiler when it isn't used in
a translation unit that included that header. Without LTO, defining an
inline function in a header can aid in inlining simply by making the
definition available to all callers. But there is a cost (compile time,
memory overhead) for defining a function in the header and therefore in all
translation units that include it. With LTO (or ThinLTO), you can move
these definitions to a source file (in which case the inline keyword *must*
be removed), and it will still be available to inline as needed. LTO does
this by merging all IR, which of course comes with a potentially big cost
to memory and loss of incremental compiles. With ThinLTO (-flto=thin) the
IR will be temporarily imported into other modules where it is thought to
be profitable to inline.

To really force inlining, you would instead need to use the attribute
"__attribute__((always_inline))". However, with or without LTO, it is
typically better to let the compiler use its heuristics to determine
whether inlining is profitable.

Teresa

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:52 PM Craig Topper via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> The inline keyword is a hint. The inliner calculates the cost of inlining
> a function using various heuristics. If the cost is too high it won't
be
> inlined. The inline keyword increases the threshold that is considered too
> costly.
>
> ~Craig
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:42 PM Peng Yu via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With LTO, it seems that compilers should have the information to
>> decide whether to inline a function or not. In this case, is it
>> unnecessary to specify functions as inline in C/C++ code?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Peng
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>

-- 
Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190119/fc58a39a/attachment.html>