http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47663
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011.02.09 16:11:54
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-09
16:11:54 UTC ---
It's actually not that simple as we have to match the caller / callee side
of costs to not run into negative limits. We could disregard returns in
registers completely or account for the cost (benefit) by not accounting
the return statement at all. It would at least be nice to have a way
to positively bias inlining of
struct X { ...large... } foo();
at a call-site that does not use the return value. Currently call-sites
that do use the return value get a benefit as well (independent of, for
example, if the return slot is passed by reference). Not handling the
return type at all would at least remove that false benefit accounting.
