https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931
--- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107931 > > --- Comment #18 from ishikawa,chiaki <ishikawa at yk dot rim.or.jp> --- > I reported the issue to the following github for a very fast hashing function > library. > https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/issues/800 > > From the discussion there, I figured -Og does not define __NO_INLINE__ as -O0 > would define it. > Well the discussion refers to the problem mentioned earlier about the same > issue. > In there, the following mentions something about __NO_INLINE__. > https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/pull/720#issuecomment-1414481935 > > > So I settled on manually define __NO_INLINE__ on the compiler command line. > This makes it the compilation succeed. > (The code seems to be written in such a manner that always_inline is not > declared for the two functions if __NO_INLINE__ is defiend.) > > It would be great if -Og can define macro __NO_INLINE__ as -O0 does. > Oh wait, -fno-inline has the same effect(?). -Og does inline small functions so defining __NO_INLINE__ would not be correct
