------- Comment #9 from msharov at hotmail dot com 2005-11-21 16:25 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Depends on which C++ developers and if they have really thought about all > their > uses of inline (most have not even though they say they want functions > declared > as inline to be inlined)?
Since when does developer ignorance require workarounds in the compiler? If I "don't really think" about how I write my iterator loops, I fully deserve to have buffer overflows (although, if the compiler can be smart enough to generate a warning, that would be great!). Likewise, if I declare all my functions inline, then I deserve to get an incredibly bloated compiled executable. That's the spirit of C - do what I say, not what you think is good for me. If I wanted the latter, I'd be using Java. > Also there are examples of where respecting inline will just cause the > compiler > to use so much memory/compile time is not funny. An example is PR 8361. Looking at that gave me the shivers :) Whoever wrote that code definitely didn't think about what should be inlined and what shouldn't be. They have inline functions a hundred lines long! I would say they got exactly what they deserved - slow compilation and a lot of bloat. If you write bad code, the bad code should be fixed, not the compiler, which is even in this case doing just what it is told to do. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24947
