From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Christian Häggström" <97nv46@skola.kiruna.se>
To: <rearnsha@arm.com>
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, <J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl>
Subject: Re: Volatile constants?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 02:50:00 -0000
Message-id: <s8e49edd.057@ymer>
X-SW-Source: 2000-03/msg00843.html

inline int abs1(int x) {
    return x<0 ? -x : x;
}
#define abs2(x) ((x)<0 ? -(x) : x)
 
int r = abs1(-7);
int s = abs2(-7);

>An inline function is NOT a macro, it's still a function.  You can't use a 
>function as an initializer for a static extent variable in C.

OK, this is not valid in ANSI C
In C++, however, this is valid.
Now, take a look at the assembly output (x86,regparm)

.data
s:	.long 7
.bss
r:	.zero	4
.text
__static_initialization_and_destruction_0:
	cmpl $65535,%edx
	jne .L86
	testl %eax,%eax
	je .L86
	movl $7,r
.L86:	ret
_GLOBAL_.I.s:
	movl $65535,%edx
	movl $1,%eax
	call __static_initialization_and_destruction_0
	ret
.section	.ctors,"aw"
	.long	 _GLOBAL_.I.s

Why is 'r' not handled as 's'?
This is slower and occupies more memory.