search for: uninlinable

A simple reproducer is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <string.h> const char * copyn (const char *str, size_t n) { return strndup (str, n); } const char * copy (const char *str) { return copyn (str, SIZE_MAX); }

Previously with GCC 10.2 this code produced: In function ‘nbdkit_strndup_intern’, inlined from ‘nbdkit_strdup_intern’ at public.c:839:10: public.c:827:10: error: ‘strndup’ specified bound 18446744073709551615 exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=] 827 | copy = strndup (str, n); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- server/public.c | 16

On 9/3/20 4:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Previously with GCC 10.2 this code produced: > > In function ‘nbdkit_strndup_intern’, > inlined from ‘nbdkit_strdup_intern’ at public.c:839:10: > public.c:827:10: error: ‘strndup’ specified bound 18446744073709551615 exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Werror=stringop-overflow=] > 827 | copy = strndup (str,

Filed upstream as: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96916 Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW

On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 10:47:13AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > A simple reproducer is: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > #include <stdio.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > #include <stdint.h> > #include <string.h> > > const char * > copyn (const char *str, size_t n) > { > return strndup

I'm not sure if this is a GCC bug or a bug in our code, but the attached workaround fixes it for me. Rich.

Xen is compiled with no -O gcc option, meaning no optimization, and the compiler does the safest thing imaginable. This means that if a function, say vmx_world_save(), calls the same inline a bazillion times, the stack will have one block of local variables for each invocation of that function! Xen really should not be doing this. We could either uninline some of these functions, or try gcc -O2

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> Why can't the compiler pass just call InlineFunction(CallSite) on the >> callsite it wants inlined? The only way that can fail is if LLVM cannot >> ever inline the call (e.g. it uses varargs). > In some cases, that would be fine. But in other cases: > (1) It cannot "un-inline" any function that was previously

On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Vikram S. Adve wrote: >>> Why can't the compiler pass just call InlineFunction(CallSite) on >>> the callsite it wants inlined? The only way that can fail is if >>> LLVM cannot ever inline the call (e.g. it uses varargs). > >> In some cases, that would be fine. But in other

On Mar 15, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Vikram S. Adve wrote: >> [I've changed the subject to make this a new thread.] >> >> While all of this makes sense to me, note that Markus and John >> were asking about different situations. Markus was asking about >> user-written source code. John was asking about a compiler pass

Vikram S. Adve wrote: Hmmm. It seems the discussion has grown a little bit larger than I had intended. :) Basically what I think would be useful is an option to the inliner that gives it a list of functions to skip when inlining. My argument for this is that we have several transformations now that search for calls to specific functions; if those functions are inlined, the transform pass

Here I will introduce my idea of a inliner that can handle splitting cold edge as well: My idea is to use the inlined function, but inline from the uninlined function. 1. Do normal optimizations without inlining 2. Split the cold edges into other functions 3. Copy each function @xyz to @xyz.i (or other name that does not clash) and mark @xyz with 'inlines @xyz.i' ==> this needs an

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote: > Hi, > > here is the next version of this patch-set. Previous > versions can be found here: > > V1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110134433.15672-1-joro at 8bytes.org/ > > V2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190115132257.6426-1-joro at 8bytes.org/ > > V3:

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote: > Hi, > > here is the next version of this patch-set. Previous > versions can be found here: > > V1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190110134433.15672-1-joro at 8bytes.org/ > > V2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190115132257.6426-1-joro at 8bytes.org/ > > V3:

And how about this one so as not to include a C specific header in llvm-backend (!!!) and not to have llvm-backend use a C specific flag (flag_no_builtin)? Index: gcc-4.2.llvm/gcc/c-opts.c =================================================================== --- gcc-4.2.llvm.orig/gcc/c-opts.c 2008-07-30 21:25:28.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc-4.2.llvm/gcc/c-opts.c 2008-07-30 21:26:17.000000000 +0200 @@

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, John Criswell wrote: > Vikram S. Adve wrote: > Basically what I think would be useful is an option to the inliner that gives > it a list of functions to skip when inlining. My argument for this is that > we have several transformations now that search for calls to specific > functions; if those functions are inlined, the transform pass can no longer >

On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:27 PM, John Criswell wrote: > Vikram S. Adve wrote: > > Hmmm. It seems the discussion has grown a little bit larger than I > had intended. > :) > > Basically what I think would be useful is an option to the inliner > that gives it a list of functions to skip when inlining. My > argument for this is that we have several transformations now

...ill significantly complicate a part of LLVM that is already poorly understood and hard to hack on. I think adding a pair of intrinsics that can't be inlined will be far less disruptive for the rest of LLVM. This is actually already the status quo for SjLj exceptions, which introduce a number of uninlinable intrinsic calls (although maybe SjLj is a bad precedent :). > > The way I see it, it's just a question of how much frame layout information you want to teach CodeGen to save. If we add the set_capture_block / get_capture_block intrinsics, then we only need to save the frame offset of *on...

TLDR - The proposal below is intended to allow inlining of larger callees when such inlining is expected to reduce the dynamic instructions count. Proposal ------------- LLVM inlines a function if the size growth (in the given context) is less than a threshold. The threshold is increased based on certain characteristics of the called function (inline keyword and the fraction of vector

On Jul 30, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > On Wednesday 30 July 2008 18:13:27 Duncan Sands wrote: >> On x86-64 linux, in stage 2, I get: >> >> c++ -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict- >> prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno- >> variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition - >>