This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
- From: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: 'Richard Earnshaw ' <rearnsha at arm dot com>,'Olivier Galibert ' <galibert at pobox dot com>
- Cc: "'Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com '" <Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com>,'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 '" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:00:16 +0100
- Subject: RE: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
> > 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.
>
> No, it's a compile my buggy program issue.
>
> There is no guarantee in the standard that an "inline" function will be
> inlined.
You've said that many times now, and you're right.
Many GCC users have said that if they say "inline" they really mean "inline"
(e.g. linux kernel hackers). And they don't want the compiler to say,
"well, not while I'm around!".
This compiler flag allows the user to make the decision, I don't see what's
wrong with that.
Of course the nut cracker should be fixed, but the sledge hammer will help
those users for now.
Greetz
Steven