On 08/13/14 14:28, David Malcolm wrote:
Thanks. Although this function gets converted back to a macro in patch
191, I just realized that in the meantime that it's not inlined, as is
the case for some of the other macro->function conversions in patches
13-16.
Do I need to convert them to inline functions with the appropriate
headers, and is that regarded as a sufficiently trivial fix to the stuff
you've already reviewed to not need re-review? (I will bootstrap&test).
I'd just make it a follow-up. #237 ;-)
Or is it OK to suffer the performance hit as the patchkit lands, before
they all become macros again in phase 4 of the patchkit?
I think so. This is a transient state, and my goal is to have this
stuff reviewed and get off the critical path before I go on PTO next week.
Note also that Jakub expressed concern about the effect of all these
inline functions on the debugging experience, and there's this patch
(awaiting review) which I believe addresses that:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg00743.html
Make it #238.
Presumably similar changes to gdbinit.in should occur for the relevant
headers (e.g. df.h in this case, though possibly targeted to just the
new function - there are already quite a few inline functions in df.h)
Yea, probably.
jeff
