This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libg++ won't build with latest snapshots
- To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva at lsd dot ic dot unicamp dot br>
- Subject: Re: libg++ won't build with latest snapshots
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 05 Jan 2000 15:24:14 +0100
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC.
- References: <oriu1rcpta.fsf@benta.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <19991222011117D.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <oremcfcp05.fsf@benta.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <19991226072643Z.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <or66x8ud6o.fsf@benta.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br> writes:
[...]
| > + /* Don't use tree-inlining for functions with named return values.
| > + That doesn't work properly because we don't do any translation of
| > + the RETURN_INITs when they are copied. */
| > + DECL_UNINLINABLE (current_function_decl) = 1;
|
| Is this supposed to remain so, or will there be some effort to arrange
| that functions with named return values become inlinable? If they
| will remain uninlinable, I'll post a patch to the docs to state this.
| Maybe we should even deprecate named return values, now that we have
| inlining of trees, which I believe accomplishes a similar degree of
| optimization.
Work to implement the return value optimization is planned
(isn't Mark? ;-). I think we will have it in EGCS, in the not so
distant future. At that point we could deprecate the 'named return
value' hack.
-- Gaby