GCC 3.3 release criteria

[tm_gccmail@mail.kloo.net]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Lars Segerlund wrote:

> 
>   I just wanted to comment on the inline versus inline debate.
> 
>    When I write inline, I MEAN inline , and I generally have a VERY good
> reason for it !
> 
>    I tend to do embedded system and regular system programming, and my
> viewpoint is that the compilers reaction to 'inline' in not up to
> interpretation, I do believe this is an opinion shared by a lot of
> people doing real work.
> 
>    Inlining during optimisation is a separate issue, but as far as I am
> concerned if this don't work as expected, I have to inline (either
> automatically or by hand), and then include the .o files prodused by asm
> sources.
> 
>    This would be quite a workaround.
> 
>    I think that somtimes 'high level' people don't quite understand the
> issues involved when you have timing constraints on sections of code.
> 
>    / Lars Segerlund.

My feelings exactly...for embedded programming and kernel work, you need
an inline keyword that consistently inlines, regardless of the setting of
the compiler switches or whatever.

This has been reiterated a lot, but evidently it's not enough. We need
reliable inlining facilities.

Toshi