This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria
- From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- To: Michael Hayes <m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>
- Cc: tm_gccmail at mail dot kloo dot net, Lars Segerlund <lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Stuart Hastings <stuart at apple dot com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:00:17 -0800
- Subject: 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
an inline keyword that consistently inlines, regardless of the
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
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.