Re: Inlining and estimate_num_insns

[Marcin Dalecki <martin at dalecki dot de>]

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
development!