GCC 3.3 release criteria

[Franz Sirl]

At 11:13 25.02.2003, Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> > > For functions marked with the "inline" keyword, as opposed to C++
> > > inline class methods, can anyone give me a reason why we don't treat
> > > the inline keyword as an always_inline attribute?
> >
> > I wholeheartedly second that. If I write "inline" in C I expect that to 
> happen
> > as soon as the optimizer is turned on. If there is room for even more
> > inlining after that, fine.
> > So, for C "inline" should be mapped to "always_inline".
>
>I think the inline keyword should be treated exactly in the same terms as
>the register keyword.  That is, as a hint to the compiler.  As time goes
>by the inline keyword will become increasingly meaningless, since the
>compiler will be able to do a better job.  Forcing the compiler to respect
>inline regardless of the consequences is a mistake.

If you want to change the inline behaviour, you need first to deprecate 
with a warning the currently documented behaviour (in 3.2/3.3) and then 
change inline to a hint in 3.4.

But the current behaviour violates the documentation (where size isn't a 
criteria for non-inlining) and thus is a bug. Note that even -Winline 
doesn't work as documented, it doesn't give a reason.

Franz.