This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g++ memory bug.
- To: Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr, law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: g++ memory bug.
- From: mrs at wrs dot com (Mike Stump)
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:01:44 -0800
- Cc: Jose dot Gomes at sophia dot inria dot fr, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com, mark at markmitchell dot com
> To: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr>
> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:39:06 -0700
> From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>
> > - Do we have to limit this only to functions explicitly marked as
> > inline (I count methods defined in the class declarations as such) ?
> I'd make it a limit on any and all inlining, regardless of whether
> or not the function is marked inline. We'd need to change the
> proposed docs accordingly.
This is a departure from the semantics that gcc had in the past. I
didn't want to depart from those semantics without a very good reason.
In the absense of such a reason, I don't think we should, so that we
retain as much the sameness of gcc as we can. Could you say more on
why this is the right decision?