From: Andre Majorel (amajorel_at_teaser.fr)
Date: 2001-06-25 20:52:47
On 2001-06-25 13:31 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > 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. Functions whose definition has the inline qualifier do not cause the generation of any object code (unless they're invoked of course :-)). That's why they're often defined in a .h instead of a .c. cc65 obviously does it differently. -- André Majorel Work: <amajorel_at_arkeia.com> Home: <amajorel_at_teaser.fr> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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