From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7312 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2005 02:00:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6507 invoked by uid 48); 2 Feb 2005 02:00:30 -0000 Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 02:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050202020030.6506.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050202015319.19748.yuri@tsoft.com> References: <20050202015319.19748.yuri@tsoft.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/19748] aggressive no-inline options still cause inlining X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00151.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-02 02:00 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Also note sometimes when a function is pure/const it can be removed which is why it might act as > inlining. This is an example where we remove the function call so it looks like inlining: void f(void) {} void g(void) { f(); } But we are not inlining here at all, we just removed the function as the function is pure/const. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19748