Re: TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P vs TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P

2009-07-09 Thread DJ Delorie
The OPTION is there because this was introduced for the option attribute. But the entry in the target structure is named can_inline_p, and the macro should be TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P. So the doc is the desired state, and the code is not. How's this? * targhooks.c

Re: TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P vs TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P

2009-07-09 Thread DJ Delorie
Thanks, committed.

TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P vs TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P

2009-07-08 Thread DJ Delorie
The documentation says: @deftypefn {Target Hook} bool TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P (tree @var{caller}, tree @var{callee}) But the code says: #ifndef TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P #define TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P default_target_option_can_inline_p #endif #define TARGET_OPTION_HOOKS

Re: TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P vs TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P

2009-07-08 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com writes: The documentation says: @deftypefn {Target Hook} bool TARGET_CAN_INLINE_P (tree @var{caller}, tree @var{callee}) But the code says: #ifndef TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P #define TARGET_OPTION_CAN_INLINE_P default_target_option_can_inline_p #endif