From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 315E63858D1E; Mon,  6 May 2024 02:23:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 315E63858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1714962201;
	bh=Jgx3AN6FeJneN8FzzpSiJP/8lfanWkH3ZiUPwuCnCDg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RtbVwWGP3So9XIXpCG3+Fq11t4Uky+sUQ1Ny3jBNZMmm7lvFFLruo+4PhBr3qHL5H
	 zxsEi5xKMwvRGQJURHvhI+x/1PLnKDf8pWSmpRlJ7vGqKRa/wn7sd+2KziZFMewphV
	 swf0n4TAoBBsPeyIDTEvQ7faph6Nuzf0iL89YE58=
From: "elrodc at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/93008] Need a way to make inlining heuristics ignore
 whether a function is inline
Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 02:23:20 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: elrodc at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-93008-4-3g9LsFkpHZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-93008-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-93008-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D93008

--- Comment #14 from Chris Elrod <elrodc at gmail dot com> ---
To me, an "inline" function is one that the compiler inlines.
It just happens that the `inline` keyword also means both comdat semantics,=
 and
possibly hiding the symbol to make it internal (-fvisibility-inlines-hidden=
).
It also just happens to be the case that the vast majority of the time I ma=
rk a
function `inline`, it is because of this, not because of the compiler hint.
`static` of course also specifies internal linkage, but I generally prefer =
the
comdat semantics: I'd rather merge than duplicate the definitions.

If there is a new keyword or pragma meaning comdat semantics (and preferably
also specifying internal linkage), I would rather have the name reference t=
hat.

I'd rather have a positive name about what it does, than negative:
"quasi_inline: like inline, except it does everything inline does except the
inline part".
Why define as a set diff -- naming it after the thing it does not do! -- if=
 you
could define it in the affirmative, based on what it does in the first plac=
e?=