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: Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>, Lars Segerlund <lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:15:51 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
Andrew writes:
> 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.
This does _not_ work for C++ - try it! You'll get the first compile errors
inside libstdc++. Make it work for C++ and I'll be happy.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at uni-tuebingen dot de>
WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/