This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:08:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini
- References: <orr4yglksg.fsf@livre.localdomain><CAFiYyc3PTSq4raahD6cMnymO=SPkO3V1SLqBG3qrCBp1XqBeSQ@mail.gmail.com><or4nvbl1yp.fsf@livre.localdomain>
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2012, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What's probably confusing you is the "Don't pay attention to the
>> @code{inline} keyword" sentence.
>
> What really set me down the wrong patch were the comments in
> gcc/common.opt, that got me the idea it had something to do with C99
> inline.
>
> ; Nonzero means that functions declared `inline' will be treated
> ; as `static'. ?Prevents generation of zillions of copies of unused
> ; static inline functions; instead, `inlines' are written out
> ; only when actually used. ?Used in conjunction with -g. ?Also
> ; does the right thing with #pragma interface.
> finline
> Common Report Var(flag_no_inline,0) Init(0)
> Pay attention to the \"inline\" keyword
Ick - WTF is that ... I'll fix it ;)
Richard.
>> I suppose we should clarify the documentation and I will prepare a patch.
>
> Thanks. ?Would you please take care of adjusting the comments in
> common.opt accordingly? ?TIA,
>
>> The implementation is exactly right
>
> Phew! :-)
>
> --
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter ? ?http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ ? FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist ? ? ?Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer