This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P vs TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:29:30 -0700
- Subject: Re: TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P vs TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P
- References: <200907090219.n692JYkr030927@greed.delorie.com>
DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:
> The documentation says:
>
> @deftypefn {Target Hook} bool TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P (tree @var{caller}, tree @var{callee})
>
> But the code says:
>
> #ifndef TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P
> #define TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P default_target_option_can_inline_p
> #endif
>
> #define TARGET_OPTION_HOOKS \
> { \
> . . .
> TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P, \
>
>
> This hook really has nothing to do with command line options. Which
> spelling is correct? The code, or the documentation?
The OPTION is there because this was introduced for the option
attribute. But the entry in the target structure is named can_inline_p,
and the macro should be TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P. So the doc is the desired
state, and the code is not.
Ian