This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Inlining and estimate_num_insns
On Sunday 27 February 2005 23:14, Richard Guenther wrote:
> While in theory this could work well, existing code-bases (such as
> POOMA) are notoriously bad in consistently using "inline" (or not).
> I > guess such scheme would work great for most C people, as C people
> generally think twice before using inline or not (at least this is
> my experience). I'd rather have the C++ frontend ignore "inline"
> completely and enable -finline-functions by default and tell people
> to use profile-directed inlining that we probably get for 4.1.
Interesting. You of course know Gaby is always claiming the exact
opposite: That the compiler must *honor* the inline keyword (explicit
or "implicit", ie. inline in class definitions), that inline is not
a hint but an order that the compiler must follow.
And much to my own surprise, I'm actually beginning to agree with him.