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

On 2005-02-27, at 23:39, Andrew Pinski wrote:

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
compiler and nothing more (well in C++ it changes the linkage).
This same discussion in a way have come up for register in the past
which is why I always compare it to that keyword, if we did what you
are suggesting for inline, we may as well do the same for register. And
now when someone compiles code made for ppc (which has lots of registers
available) on x86, you will get an ICE because the code uses register
a lot.

And I view the register keyword as a fine tunning tool. In view of the fact
that this kind of work is highly target related task you make it useless by
your definition. People, please, PREDICTABILITY of behaviour is a paradigm of software

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