https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65478
--- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> --- > > This suggests that cloning of function Search and not inlining > > NextMove is only part of the story. > > > > I'm attaching output of my script that compares inlining decisions. > "File 1" is wpa inlining dump file generated by r219862, "File 2" is > wpa inlining dump generated by r219863 on source where Search was > annotated as noclone. Thanks. I suppose we need to oprofile resulting binary and see. > > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7) > > Yep, that sounds like resonable thing to try to me. > > > > OK, I'll prepare a patch for this part. Actually, there is one detail. Cloning SCC and keeping it a SCC is cool thing (as one avoid passing constant parameter across the recursive loop), but clonning function from SCC and keeping all calls within the connected component to go to the original SCC is not cool. It would be nice to make difference between these. Thanks! Honza
