This is the mail archive of the
egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
mailing list for the EGCS project. See the EGCS
home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Re: kernel-2.2.1-undefined references.
- To: chip@perlsupport.com (Chip Salzenberg)
- Subject: Re: kernel-2.2.1-undefined references.
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck@Synopsys.COM>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 99 11:06:03 PST
- Cc: law@cygnus.com, hpa@transmeta.com, egcs@egcs.cygnus.com, torvalds@transmeta.com, alan.cox@linux.org
- Delivered-To: listarch-egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
- Delivered-To: mailing list egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
- In-Reply-To: <19990208135313.H305@perlsupport.com>; from "Chip Salzenberg" at Feb 8, 99 1:53 pm
- Mailing-List: contact egcs-help@egcs.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
- Sender: owner-egcs@egcs.cygnus.com
> Doesn't it make sense, though, to be _able_ to force a given function
> to be inlined, no matter what?
No. There's recursion, dependence on other inline functions whose
definitions aren't available because of forward declaration (which you
could solve maybe my making the compiler store the whole input), use of API
features that require stack frames, etc.
If you replace "no matter what" with "except in certain well-defined
circumstances" it's doable.