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: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)

From: Olivier Galibert <galibert at pobox dot com>
To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>,Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Stuart Hastings <stuart at apple dot com>,Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>, Ron Price <ronp at apple dot com>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:35:06 +0100
Subject: Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303131005280.11640-100000@bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> <200303130954.h2D9s5922992@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:54:05AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I still think this is a bad idea.  Please start thinking about how to 
> produce a better nut cracker rather than a larger sledge hammer.

-fobey-inline is more of a correctness issue than a performance issue
for the people who need it.

  OG.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

References:
- Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

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