This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>, Andi Kleen <ak at suse dot de>, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:13:07 +0000
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> > For functions marked with the "inline" keyword, as opposed to C++
> > inline class methods, can anyone give me a reason why we don't treat
> > the inline keyword as an always_inline attribute?
>
> I wholeheartedly second that. If I write "inline" in C I expect that to happen
> as soon as the optimizer is turned on. If there is room for even more
> inlining after that, fine.
> So, for C "inline" should be mapped to "always_inline".
I think the inline keyword should be treated exactly in the same terms as
the register keyword. That is, as a hint to the compiler. As time goes
by the inline keyword will become increasingly meaningless, since the
compiler will be able to do a better job. Forcing the compiler to respect
inline regardless of the consequences is a mistake.
R.