This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC 3.3 release criteria


On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 12:51 PM, Michael Hayes wrote:

tm_gccmail at mail dot kloo dot net writes:

My feelings exactly...for embedded programming and kernel work, you need
an inline keyword that consistently inlines, regardless of the setting of
the compiler switches or whatever.

I endorse this for small-scale embedded apps where you want the convenience of a function call abstraction but not the expense of a call instruction---some micros only have an 8 level call stack!

For general programming, I'm happy to defer to the wisdom of the
compiler.

This sounds like an argument in favor of a switch like Apple's -fobey-inline. Programmers who are writing specialized code and who need detailed control of low-level optimizations will use that switch, others won't.

Again, I should remind people: Apple tried the experiment of
making -fobey-inline the default.  The results were not good.
This sort of low-level control is sometimes useful, but it's
not useful as often as a lot of people think it is.  If we
do make -fobey-inline available (which I think we should),
then I encourage everyone to compile their code with and
without it, and look at the effect on code size, before adding
it to their makefiles.

--Matt


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