This is the mail archive of the 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: Inlining and estimate_num_insns

Andrew Pinski <> writes:

| On Feb 27, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
| > 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.
| I always say that inline is like register, it is just a hint to the

I may account that for partly responsible of the current state.

inline will be like register, if and when we achieve the same maturity
level as we do for register allocation.  And then, it might just die
or be recycled (like "auto").  But, at the moment we're not even remotely
near that state. Inline isn't just like register.
Yes, I know the claim "the next releave will make inline void of
semantics".  That has been made consistently for 25 years now, since it
was invented for C++.

-- Gaby

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