This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC 3.3 release criteria

From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>
Cc: Michael Hayes <m dot hayes at elec dot canterbury dot ac dot nz>, tm_gccmail at mail dot kloo dot net, Lars Segerlund <lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Stuart Hastings <stuart at apple dot com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:23:48 -0800
Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria

On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 01:00:17PM -0800, Matt Austern wrote:

not useful as often as a lot of people think it is.  If we
do make -fobey-inline available (which I think we should),
then I encourage everyone to compile their code with and
without it, and look at the effect on code size, before adding
it to their makefiles.


It should be the default for gnu89 mode in the C frontend because
that's what existing code expects.  Silently changing semantics is
not a very good idea if it can be avoided.


How can it be what existing code expects, when it's not what the
existing compiler does?  I agree with you that "silently changing
semantics is not a very good idea", which is why we shouldn't
change inline from a hint into a directive except in a special
non-default compilation mode.

--Matt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria
  - From: Michel LESPINASSE

References:
- Re: GCC 3.3 release criteria
  - From: Christoph Hellwig

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]