RFR(S): 8007144: Incremental inlining mistakes some call sites for dead ones and doesn't inline them

[Vladimir Kozlov]

On 1/31/13 9:18 AM, Roland Westrelin wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Thanks for reviewing this.
>
>> Could you do this as separate fix since it is not complete? Adding needs_printing only to LateInlineString create more mess (why only for laterstring and not for incremental inlining?) which is difficult to follow. We need to think more how to clean up printing for late inlining.
>
> Sure I can do this as a separate change and I'll try to come up with something better.

Please, also consolidate output to tty and into LogCompilation so they 
are consistent.

> What should PrintInlining do when the string operations are optimized? Should it print anything?

Could you tell what currently happens (what PrintInlining output)?

We could mark original calls (StingBuilder, append, toSting) as 
"stringopt inline".

>
>> And I am fine with next change in the fix:
>>
>> -  C->print_inlining_insert(this);
>> +  if (PrintInlining) {
>> +    print_inlining_late("incremental inline (hot)");
>> +  }
>
> What do you mean? That explicitly stating "incremental" in the message is ok with you?

Using "incremental". Calling print_inlining_late will produce duplicated 
output. Right?

Thanks,
Vladimir

>
> Roland.
>