similar to: [LLVMdev] calling conventions and inlining

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long >>> needed implementation of calling conventions, may I also ask if it's >>> possible to address inlining at the same moment (i.e. attributes

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long needed > implementation of calling conventions, may I also ask if it's possible to > address inlining at the same moment (i.e. attributes always_inline and > noinline, but maybe LLVM wants a finer grained level here) ? They really are different issues.

On Sun, 8 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >>> but looking at the disassembly suggests that this might mainly be an issue >>> of x86 codegen, which is rather young as compared to other compilers. >> If you're testing on X86, I would be strongly suspious of the X86 backend,

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Actually I feel that the current state of the art of inlining is where > register allocation has been about 10 years ago. It's pretty fine for most > things, but back then I remember writing code like "register const char *p > __asm__("%esi");" where just adding the explicit __asm__ boosted performance

On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 02:52 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Put simply, the inliner is too greedy and nice little leaf functions > suddenly run out of CPU registers. Even gcc 3.4 with -funit-at-a-time > started inlining too much, but at least I can tell gcc where to stop. > This whole noinline issue may be somewhat X86 specific, though. This is where a register allocator

There is one case where inlining/not-inlining affects correctness. A function which uses alloca() will behave differently in the two cases. You can argue one shouldn't write code like this, but it is legal. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > >> I see that you are objecting explicit inline control. >> >> The main problem is

On Sat, 7 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > I see that you are objecting explicit inline control. > > The main problem is that inlining is absolutely crucial for some > "modern" programming styles. E.g. we use a huge collection of small C++ > template classes and template metaclasses, most of which have very > trivial and limited functionality (think of it

4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com> commit d03db2bc26f0e4a6849ad649a09c9c73fccdc656 upstream. Functions marked extern inline do not emit an externally visible function when the gnu89 C standard is used. Some KBUILD Makefiles overwrite KBUILD_CFLAGS. This is an issue for GCC 5.1+

4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com> commit d03db2bc26f0e4a6849ad649a09c9c73fccdc656 upstream. Functions marked extern inline do not emit an externally visible function when the gnu89 C standard is used. Some KBUILD Makefiles overwrite KBUILD_CFLAGS. This is an issue for GCC 5.1+

4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com> commit d03db2bc26f0e4a6849ad649a09c9c73fccdc656 upstream. Functions marked extern inline do not emit an externally visible function when the gnu89 C standard is used. Some KBUILD Makefiles overwrite KBUILD_CFLAGS. This is an issue for GCC

4.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com> commit d03db2bc26f0e4a6849ad649a09c9c73fccdc656 upstream. Functions marked extern inline do not emit an externally visible function when the gnu89 C standard is used. Some KBUILD Makefiles overwrite KBUILD_CFLAGS. This is an issue for GCC

On Thursday 10 February 2005 21:47, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > In order to get more familiar with the llvm sources I've recently > decided to try to add support for the always_inline and noline function > attributes. I believe it is better to let the compiler decide when or not to inline a function. Most of the times a developer goes overboard with inlining and ends up with a

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled compiler-gcc.h: Add __attribute__((gnu_inline)) to all inline declarations to the 4.4-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: compiler-gcc.h-add-__attribute__-gnu_inline-to-all-inline-declarations.patch and

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled compiler-gcc.h: Add __attribute__((gnu_inline)) to all inline declarations to the 4.14-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: compiler-gcc.h-add-__attribute__-gnu_inline-to-all-inline-declarations.patch

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled compiler-gcc.h: Add __attribute__((gnu_inline)) to all inline declarations to the 4.17-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: compiler-gcc.h-add-__attribute__-gnu_inline-to-all-inline-declarations.patch

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled compiler-gcc.h: Add __attribute__((gnu_inline)) to all inline declarations to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: compiler-gcc.h-add-__attribute__-gnu_inline-to-all-inline-declarations.patch and

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Still, my approach makes the inline hint a first-class property of an LLVM > function just like the calling convention, including preserving full source > code information. Preserving full source code information isn't a goal of LLVM, at least if you don't count debug information. :) > Most of the patch is actually

Hi everyone, clang currently implements the 'flatten' function attribute by marking all calls to not 'noinline' functions with 'always_inline'. In effect, only the first level of calls is inlined, not all calls recursively (like gcc does). We briefly discussed possible solutions on IRC: We could add an equivalent LLVM attribute for functions (e.g. 'flatten'). The

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> I'm currently working with an experimental analysis pass that checks for >> calls to memory allocation functions; inlining and dead code elimination >> might make the pass more stable, but we don't want to inline the calls to >> the memory allocation functions until after our analysis pass is finished. >

Hi Devang, I have a few questions below. On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any > thoughts,comments or > suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. > - > Devang > > // > = > = > = > ----------------------------------------------------------------------= > ==// > //