[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:04:14 +0300 |
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:46:31 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> Cc: 11935@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> +#if __GNUC__ > 3 || (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 2)
> +# define ALWAYS_INLINE __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
> +#else
> +# define ALWAYS_INLINE
> +#endif
> +
> +/* When compiling via GCC without optimization, and without -DINLINING=0,
> + always inline functions marked 'inline'. This typically improves CPU
> + performance when debugging. With optimization, trust the compiler
> + to inline as appropriate. */
> +#ifndef INLINING
> +# define INLINING 1
> +#endif
> +#if (defined __NO_INLINE__ \
> + && ! defined __OPTIMIZE__ && ! defined __OPTIMIZE_SIZE__ \
> + && INLINING && !defined inline)
> +# define inline ALWAYS_INLINE
> +#endif
> +
Wouldn't this inline all the functions declared 'inline'? If so,
that's going too far, IMO. I think we need a facility for doing this
only with a few functions that affect performance.
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/13
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Richard Stallman, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/23
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Stefan Monnier, 2012/07/24
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/24
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Stefan Monnier, 2012/07/24
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/25
bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Chong Yidong, 2012/07/15