From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13847 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2003 18:34:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13818 invoked by uid 48); 25 Apr 2003 18:34:05 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030425183405.13817.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: fkaufman@ee.ethz.ch, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sensorflo@bigfoot.com From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, fkaufman@ee.ethz.ch, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, sensorflo@bigfoot.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/10500: despite -Winline no warnings emited X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01121.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: despite -Winline no warnings emited State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Fri Apr 25 18:34:04 2003 State-Changed-Why: Confirmed. Here's a self-contained testcase: ----------------------- struct CFoo { int foo(int i); inline int foo_inline1(int sw, int i); }; inline int CFoo::foo_inline1( int sw, int i ) { switch (sw) { case 0: return i; case 10: return i*2; case 20: return i+3; case 30: return i^4; case 40: return i%4; case 50: return i*i; case 60: return i-i*2; case 70: return i*8; case 80: return i/44; case 90: return i*100; } return 0; } int CFoo::foo( int i ) { return foo_inline1(40, i); } --------------------------------- The assembler output still contains the call to foo_inline1, up to present 3.4. It's arguable if the fact that it is not inlined is a bug, but it should at least warn if -Winline is given -- the latter doesn't happen. W. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10500