Re: more on the C++ abstraction penalty

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Joe --

  It's good that you point out this optimization -- but I wish you
wouldn't just now. :-)

  The reason is that we don't need this functionality for GCC 3.0; all
we need is what we had in GCC 2.95.  I would prefer that we not
encourage people to go trying to implement this now; I really want to
batten down the hatches on new features.  It would be better to have
people focused on getting out the bugs in GCC 3.0.

  We'll be switching libraries at the end of this week, and hopefully
ABIs a week or two after that.  After that, I'm expecting to ask for
feature freeze and code slush.

  I'm not trying to be negative; you're right that a large part of the
reason we did the tree-based inliner was to facilitate this and other
similar optimizations.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com