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

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Neil Booth writes:
 > Lars Segerlund wrote:-
 > 
 > >  Are there any arguments against this other than ideological ? ( this 
 > > flag doesn't interfere with gcc's normal operation and only when it's 
 > > needed is it in effect, how can that be so bad ? ).
 > 
 > That's not a good argument for yet-another-switch-in-gcc.

Yeah.  I gotta admit that 

#define inline          __inline__ __attribute__((always_inline))

solves the problem so completely that an new gcc option is unnecessary.
It can even be written "gcc -D inline=__inline__ __attribute__((always_inline))"
Andrew.