PR tree-optimization/51680

	* ipa-inline.c (want_inline_small_function_p): Be more lax on functions
	whose inlining reduce unit size.


git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@182983 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4

1 files changed, 38 insertions, 31 deletions

diff --git a/gcc/ipa-inline.c b/gcc/ipa-inline.c
index 14bd89a67bc..b5c1db0932b 100644
--- a/gcc/ipa-inline.c
+++ b/gcc/ipa-inline.c
@@ -482,6 +482,42 @@ want_inline_small_function_p (struct cgraph_edge *e, bool report)
           e->inline_failed = CIF_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE_LIMIT;
 	  want_inline = false;
 	}
+      /* Before giving up based on fact that caller size will grow, allow
+         functions that are called few times and eliminating the offline
+	 copy will lead to overall code size reduction.
+	 Not all of these will be handled by subsequent inlining of functions
+	 called once: in particular weak functions are not handled or funcitons
+	 that inline to multiple calls but a lot of bodies is optimized out.
+	 Finally we want to inline earlier to allow inlining of callbacks.
+
+	 This is slightly wrong on aggressive side:  it is entirely possible
+	 that function is called many times with a context where inlining
+	 reduces code size and few times with a context where inlining increase
+	 code size.  Resoluting growth estimate will be negative even if it
+	 would make more sense to keep offline copy and do not inline into the
+	 call sites that makes the code size grow.  
+
+	 When badness orders the calls in a way that code reducing calls come
+	 first, this situation is not a problem at all: after inlining all
+	 "good" calls, we will realize that keeping the function around is
+	 better.  */
+      else if (growth <= MAX_INLINE_INSNS_SINGLE
+	       /* Unlike for functions called once, we play unsafe with
+		  COMDATs.  We can allow that since we know functions
+		  in consideration are small (and thus risk is small) and
+		  moreover grow estimates already accounts that COMDAT
+		  functions may or may not disappear when eliminated from
+		  current unit. With good probability making aggressive
+		  choice in all units is going to make overall program
+		  smaller.
+
+		  Consequently we ask cgraph_can_remove_if_no_direct_calls_p
+		  instead of
+		  cgraph_will_be_removed_from_program_if_no_direct_calls  */
+	        && !DECL_EXTERNAL (callee->decl)
+		&& cgraph_can_remove_if_no_direct_calls_p (callee)
+		&& estimate_growth (callee) <= 0)
+	;
       else if (!DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (callee->decl)
 	       && !flag_inline_functions)
 	{
@@ -494,39 +530,10 @@ want_inline_small_function_p (struct cgraph_edge *e, bool report)
           e->inline_failed = CIF_MAX_INLINE_INSNS_AUTO_LIMIT;
 	  want_inline = false;
 	}
-      /* If call is cold, do not inline when function body would grow.
-	 Still inline when the overall unit size will shrink because the offline
-	 copy of function being eliminated.
+      /* If call is cold, do not inline when function body would grow. */
+      else if (!cgraph_maybe_hot_edge_p (e))
 
-	 This is slightly wrong on aggressive side:  it is entirely possible
-	 that function is called many times with a context where inlining
-	 reduces code size and few times with a context where inlining increase
-	 code size.  Resoluting growth estimate will be negative even if it
-	 would make more sense to keep offline copy and do not inline into the
-	 call sites that makes the code size grow.  
 
-	 When badness orders the calls in a way that code reducing calls come
-	 first, this situation is not a problem at all: after inlining all
-	 "good" calls, we will realize that keeping the function around is
-	 better.  */
-      else if (!cgraph_maybe_hot_edge_p (e)
-	       && (DECL_EXTERNAL (callee->decl)
-
-		   /* Unlike for functions called once, we play unsafe with
-		      COMDATs.  We can allow that since we know functions
-		      in consideration are small (and thus risk is small) and
-		      moreover grow estimates already accounts that COMDAT
-		      functions may or may not disappear when eliminated from
-		      current unit. With good probability making aggressive
-		      choice in all units is going to make overall program
-		      smaller.
-
-		      Consequently we ask cgraph_can_remove_if_no_direct_calls_p
-		      instead of
-		      cgraph_will_be_removed_from_program_if_no_direct_calls  */
-
-		   || !cgraph_can_remove_if_no_direct_calls_p (callee)
-		   || estimate_growth (callee) > 0))
 	{
           e->inline_failed = CIF_UNLIKELY_CALL;
 	  want_inline = false;