From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31673 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2009 04:29:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 31654 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2009 04:29:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:29:39 +0000 Received: from spaceape7.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape7.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.141]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n694Tac9007216 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:29:37 -0700 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wahk34.prod.google.com [10.114.237.34]) by spaceape7.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n694TXKn027215 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:29:34 -0700 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so1171882wah.19 for ; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.32.8 with SMTP id k8mr590707waj.15.1247113772960; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain.google.com (adsl-71-133-8-30.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [71.133.8.30]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k21sm2462754waf.59.2009.07.08.21.29.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:29:32 -0700 (PDT) To: DJ Delorie Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P vs TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P References: <200907090219.n692JYkr030927@greed.delorie.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200907090219.n692JYkr030927@greed.delorie.com> (DJ Delorie's message of "Wed\, 8 Jul 2009 22\:19\:34 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 DJ Delorie writes: > The documentation says: > > @deftypefn {Target Hook} bool TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P (tree @var{caller}, tree @var{callee}) > > But the code says: > > #ifndef TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P > #define TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P default_target_option_can_inline_p > #endif > > #define TARGET_OPTION_HOOKS \ > { \ > . . . > TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P, \ > > > This hook really has nothing to do with command line options. Which > spelling is correct? The code, or the documentation? The OPTION is there because this was introduced for the option attribute. But the entry in the target structure is named can_inline_p, and the macro should be TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P. So the doc is the desired state, and the code is not. Ian