Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> It seems undesirable for -O options to affect which programs will
>>> compile.
>>
>> Agreed. Perhaps we should run the inliner at -O0 if we see
>> always_inline attributes, just for those functions?
>
> We do; the problem is that it makes only 1 pas
On Mar 15, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Consider the following:
static inline int a() __attribute((always_inline));
static inline int b() __attribute((always_inline));
static inline int b() { a(); }
static inline int a() { }
int c() { b(); }
Th
Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consider the following:
>
> static inline int a() __attribute((always_inline));
> static inline int b() __attribute((always_inline));
>
> static inline int b() { a(); }
> static inline int a() { }
> int c() { b(); }
>
> This compiles fine at -O2. At -
Consider the following:
static inline int a() __attribute((always_inline));
static inline int b() __attribute((always_inline));
static inline int b() { a(); }
static inline int a() { }
int c() { b(); }
This compiles fine at -O2. At -O0 we get the baffling error
sorry, unimplemented: inlining fai
