This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [C++] Unreviewed patches

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: "lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net" <lerdsuwa at users dot sourceforge dot net>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 14:48:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [C++] Unreviewed patches
References: <3D3439C1.6226B48C@users.sourceforge.net><503440000.1026851318@gandalf.codesourcery.com><20020716143029.B6000@redhat.com>

--On Tuesday, July 16, 2002 02:30:29 PM -0700 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 01:28:38PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:

It doesn't actually test whether or not the compiler is inlining
the function or not.  I can't think of a practical way to test that,
so you may as well drop the test.

If all copies are supposed to be inlined, then one
can use a scan-assembler-not test for the symbol.

Yeah; the problem here is that you can only say that you want the function
by creating an out-of-class specialization and I think that asks for it
to be put out at that point.

That assumption might be wrong, in which case your idea would work.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- [C++] Unreviewed patches
  - From: Kriang Lerdsuwanakij
- Re: [C++] Unreviewed patches
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [C++] Unreviewed patches
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]