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: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings

From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 04 May 2003 23:45:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305042240420.478-100000@goofy><20030504205730.GR16629@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <1052082133.724.254.camel@steven>

Op zo 04-05-2003, om 23:02 schreef Steven Bosscher:
> Giving more weight to nested inline functions seems like a good idea,
> and it's probably not very hard to do.  Just see if TREE_CONTEXT != NULL
> in tree-inline.  That would probably also give more weight to inline
> functions inside class declaration in C++.  Certainly something we
> should try.

Hmm the C++ part if this is of course not true.  Are functions declared
in a class declaration automatically "inline"?

Greetz
Steven

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings
  - From: Michael Matz

References:
- Re: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: Experimenting with tree inliner parameter settings
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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