> > As I wrote in another mail, the only difference I'm aware of is
> > the DECL_NO_INLINE_WARNING_P flag, which is set on bar and not on bar2
> > in this case. That flag is used just for -Winline warning.
> >
> > int baz (void *);
> >
> > struct S {
> > int foo (int n) { return baz (__builtin_alloca (n)); }
> > inline int bar (int n) { return baz (__builtin_alloca (n)); }
> > };
> >
> > int
> > baz (int n)
> > {
> > return S{}.foo (n) + S{}.bar (n);
> > }
> >
> > We do warn with -O2 -Winline about not inlining bar, but not foo.
> > This was changed in PR18071.
>
> Which was about -fno-default-inline which was removed in 2013. So I
> think it's a bug that -Winline still treats S::foo and S::bar
> differently.
Sorry, I am getting old and this was recollection from long time ago.
In 2001-2003 when C++ triggered kind of "inlining crisis" due to the
fact that C++ makes people to write a lot of code into class/template
definitions which is not really intended for inlining, but has inline
hint on them. To prevent GCC from exploding on templatized code we had
to weaken handling of DECL_DECLARED_INLINE which made C developers
unhappy since they expect it to be strong hint. For this reason we
introduced DECL_INLINE and DECL_DECLARED_INLINE to distinguish implicit
inlines from explicit inlines and also added always_inline. I rewrote
inliner heuristics in 2003 and dropped the difference in 2008 :))
Honza
