From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar@cygnus.co.uk>
To: rth@cygnus.com (Richard Henderson)
Cc: skawina@geocities.com, jamie.lokier@cern.ch, martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: what's required for builtin_memcpy to be inlined
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 18:02:00 -0000
Message-ID: <199909131728.SAA31642@phal.cygnus.co.uk>
References: <19990910161127.B14062@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-09n/msg00497.html
Message-ID: <19990930180200.EY1Ofq9yMDh87iw338OftZYQu2c8jaOty7t5G2joB8Q@z>

> On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 10:51:25PM +0200, Artur Skawina wrote:
> > [I'm not complaing that __builtin_constant_p got smarter -- that's
> >  a very good thing in itself, and I hope it gets even smarter. It's
> >  just that a __builtin_constant_p that is smarter then a builtin
> >  string routine makes the latter much less useful...]
> 
> Perhaps in the moderately near future we'll be able to do 
> something about this.  Nothing near-term though.

Well, wouldn't this depend on code contributions?
I think it should be faily straightforward to fold builtin function calls
when their arguments are constant.