From: Mike McCarty (jmccarty_at_ssd.usa.alcatel.com)
Date: 2001-06-25 20:31:04
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2001-06-25 08:34 +0200, Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 12:20:54AM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > > Just a side note: one of the improvements in GCC 3.0 was, they
> > > say, to move the inlining stage before the optimization stage to
> > > make it possible to optimize across inlined function calls.
> >
> > It is correct to do so. On the other side, the linker is able to see more of
> > the final program than the optimizer when run over one module. So the linker
> > would be able to inline things, that the compiler cannot inline, because it
> > does not see the code for the inlined function.
>
> I believe they're talking about inlining of user-defined
> functions. Those functions cannot be inlined by the linker.
> They're defined in a .h, not a .c.
I find this statement confusing. The compiler/linker make no
distinctions between source files' names, extensions, or locations. All
they care about is compilation units.
> GCC also has built-ins for certain common functions like
> memset() and memcpy(). In this case as well, I believe the
> inlining is done in the compiler, not in the linker.
Mike
--
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I don't speak for Alcatel <- They make me say that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2001-12-14 22:05:40 CET