Re: C++ inlining (request for better optimization).

[Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>]

> The progress in 'egcs' development is really exciting, thanks to all
> involved. One thing, however, bothers me: it seems 'g++' could do 
> better function inlining:

Yes, in examples that require two or more levels of lookahead inlining
can fail: if an inline function includes another inline function that
appears later, inlining usually fails.

> Such behavior forces me to arrange code according to the 'egcs'
> preferences 
> instead of style (moving body of 'copy' before the call solves the
> problem).

An alternative to putting private before public members is something
like this:

class foo {
public:
	// foo calls private inline message 'init'
	inline foo(unsigned n);
private:
	void init(unsigned n) {
		for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
			data[i] = i;
	}
	...
};

inline foo::foo(unsigned n) { init(n);}

> Maybe this behavior is intended to force programmer to move function 
> definitions out of class declaration?

I think it's kind of an accident caused by the order that g++ scans
the code.

> Is it possible to fix that?

Anything's possible.  However, if the fix is to make multiple passes
over the source, thereby slowing down compilation, I'd rather do -Winline
and rearrange my code.  I don't think it should be a high priority.