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: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 16 Mar 2003 15:41:17 -0300
- Subject: Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303151708460.14456-100000@host140.cambridge.redhat.com>
On Mar 15, 2003, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com> wrote:
> And why not? If I add the "inline" keyword, I do it for a good reason (I
> want the function inlined).
What if you don't add the `inline' keyword, but define a member
function inside the class body in C++? Per the C++ Standard, such a
member function is implicitly `inline'. Must this inline marker get
the same weight as a function defined outside the class body, with the
inline keyword explicitly given?
> I don't see why the compiler has to make me beg for it with
> "always_inline" when I've already made my intention clear.
always_inline is an entirely different matter. always_inline is about
`inline or die', not about `inline or it will be slower'.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva at {redhat dot com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva at {lsd dot ic dot unicamp dot br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer