This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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] |
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:06:55PM -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote:Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> writes:
Some regression patches which look like they have not been reviewed yet
(note some of them might have bee sent out in the last few days too).
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg02664.html -Winline and -fno-default-inline
This patch is not right. The whole point of -Winline is to warn about
functions that the compiler for some reason considers not inlineable, even
if the reason seems dumb (like "you said -fno-inline").
That would make sense for -Winline and -fno-inline, but does it apply to -fno-default-inline? That seems more like an implied source transformation - "delete these implicit newline keywords".
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |