Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Basically we need to explain inliner that the abstraction functions are
| free to get sane results on C++...
\o/
[...]
| The only problem with common heuristics I see is that in C the "inline"
| keyword is very strong hint basically meaning "I use language extension
"inline" is no longer an extension in C.
| because I really want to inline it", while in C++ it is "maybe I want to
| inline it, but maybe I just put it to header for fun". We might want to
| distinguish these in the case we fail to deal with them in common
| miserably.
You can start with ignoring the "I just put it to header for fun" part.
But I guess, I already made the case for that in the past. As pointed
out by someone else, it is important that the inliner does not insist
on thinking that C++ inline is partly for decoration, so that we can
can keep the abstraction penalty as mininmum as possible in our
standard library.
-- Gaby
