This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Inline functiion in GCC

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: James E Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
Cc: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 16:02:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Inline functiion in GCC
References: <41135CDA.2060700@samsung.com> <200408061233.34287.paul@codesourcery.com> <4113F60B.5060705@specifixinc.com>

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 02:20:11PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
> > Like most compilers, gcc generates very poor code if you don't turn 
> > optimization on.
> 
> But don't most compilers emit optimized code by default nowadays?  We 
> would eliminate some of the questions we get if we defaulted to -O1 
> instead of -O0.

The problem is that neither -O0 nor -O1 is really ideal for default code.
-O0 generates needlessly crappy code, but -O1 does not preserve
source correspondence closely enough to avoid problems with debugging or
with code coverage or profiling measurements.

References:
- Inline functiion in GCC
  - From: Venkatachala Upadhya
- Re: Inline functiion in GCC
  - From: Paul Brook
- Re: Inline functiion in GCC
  - From: James E Wilson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]