This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: inlining default
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:05:14 +0000
- Subject: Re: inlining default
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><20011213075951.A14476@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Booth <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:-
>> --On Wednesday, December 12, 2001 02:00:03 PM +0000 Jason Merrill
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >It seems that Neil's 2001-11-15 changes to option parsing had a side
>> >effect of turning on tree inlining at -O0 for C and C++ unless suppressed
>> >with -fno-inline, because we now set flag_tree_inline from flag_no_inline
>> >before setting flag_no_inline from optimize. Is this what we want? I
>> >would prefer to leave it off by default with -O0, but many compilers turn
>> >it on unless specifically disabled. What do other people think?
>> I think we should leave it off at -O0. I can't see a compelling
>> reason to change our historical practice.
> I think this inadvertant semantic change is cured by the patch below.
> Let me know if you want me to bootstrap, test and apply it.
Please. Though while we're at it, it would be reasonable to be able to say
-O0 -finline; I would think that would just mean changing flag_no_inline to
default to 1 and clearing it if optimize>0.