This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: On inlining in C++
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 22:49:01 -0700
- Subject: Re: On inlining in C++
On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 09:31 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:06:43PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Give C++ "inline" its original and obvious meaning
Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions>
This is a complete waste of time. inlining is an optimization.
Optimizations are always subject to improvement. Therefore, inlining
is subject to improvement.
Removing the optimizer from inlining isn't where we are going, it just
isn't going to happen, ever, get over it.
What isn't a waste of time, would be to point out a case where the
optimizer gets it wrong, and explain what would be better, and then we
can retune the optimizer to be _better_ without that being at the
expense of other code. We already knew that some of the heuristics are
probably wrong for C. If people want, we can bump up the numbers a ton
for the heuristic for things marked with inline (or whatever else
anyone would like) and then wait for the bug reports that said we went
too far, and then bump them back down some...
It would be good if we could sign up lots of people to benchmark their
favorite programs as we tune it around, and give timely feedback on
them so that we know how things are being impacted.