From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-69034-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6224 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2003 06:45:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6217 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 06:45:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp4.wanadoo.nl) (194.134.35.175)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 06:45:24 -0000
Received: from steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (3eea14be.cable.wanadoo.nl [62.234.20.190])
	by smtp4.wanadoo.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D049C3E5FA; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:45:23 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Inlining (was: GCC 3.3 release criteria)
From: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
To: Matt Austern <austern@apple.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
	"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	Stuart Hastings <stuart@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <97FAC2CA-4858-11D7-94CF-00039390D9E0@apple.com>
References: <97FAC2CA-4858-11D7-94CF-00039390D9E0@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:09:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1046155533.725.17.camel@steven>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg01683.txt.bz2

Op di 25-02-2003, om 01:32 schreef Matt Austern:
> As it happens, Apple may be able to contribute a patch that does what
> you're looking for.  We've got a local patch that adds a new command
> line switch, -fobey-inline.   The switch does exactly what you think: 
> the
> compiler will inline every function that's marked 'inline' whenever it's
> possible.  (There are still cases where it's not possible, of course, 
> e.g.
> if you mark a recursive function inline.)
> 
> We definitely don't want -fobey-inline to be the default: usually it's
> better for the compiler to treat the inline keyword as a hint, and to
> use its own heuristics to decide when to accept the hint.  But there are
> cases, as you've found, when a flag like this is useful.

The compiler may be able to make better inlining decisionsm, but it
should IMHO never overrule the user.  So if the user says "inline this"
then the compiler should try really hard to do so, even if it thinks the
resulting code is worse than without inlining.

How about making "obey-inline" the default, with a flag to enable a
warning that would make the compiler complain if it thinks the function
shouldn't be inlined?

> If Apple contributed the -fobey-inline patch, would people here be
> interested in it?

Yes.

Greetz
Steven