Hi,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:28:49PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:00:52PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
...
> >> Here is what I mean:
> >>
> >> int func(int a, .)
> >> {
> >> if (a==some_const
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:00:52PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
>> if caller(s) to that function is located in another object.
>
> That is not exactly
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:00:52PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
> Hi,
> The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
> if caller(s) to that function is located in another object.
That is not exactly true. With -fipa-cp-clone (default at -O3),
IPA-CP is happy to c
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov
wrote:
> Hi,
> The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
> if caller(s) to that function is located in another object. Of course,
> no such problems if we could utilized LTO. And it is very interesting
> to have such fu
Hi,
The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
if caller(s) to that function is located in another object. Of course,
no such problems if we could utilized LTO. And it is very interesting
to have such functionality of compiler even without LTO. It could be
changed, if for
