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]

Re: ping regression patches



On 10/12/2004, at 1:06 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:


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".

-fno-default-inline shouldn't *prevent* inlining, it just means a method inside the class definition has to qualify for inlining like any other routine. So I'm really not sure why -Winline would need to handle such routines specially.

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]