Message-Id: <199903182058.PAA23729@indy3.indy.net>
From: "Steve Snyder" <ssnyder AT indy DOT net>
To: "pgcc AT delorie DOT com" <pgcc AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 15:57:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: PMMail 2.00.1500 for OS/2 Warp 4.00
In-Reply-To: <19990318190913.A4377@win.tue.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Questions on inlining of code
Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 19:09:13 +0100, Ronald de Man wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 10:03:43AM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>> 
>>   In message <199903181530 DOT KAA01307 AT indy3 DOT indy DOT net>you write:
>>   > Two question on inlining of code in egcs/pgcc:
>>   > 
>>   > 1. Is it possible to disable automatic inlining (compiler switches -O3 or 
>>   > -finline) while still respecting the inline declaration in the source code?
>>   > I'd like to compile with max optimization (-O6) while avoiding the bloat 
>>   > that comes with aggressive inlining of code.  At the same time, though, I 
>>   > don't want to disabled the inlining of code explicitly declared as such.
>> The only difference between -O2 and -On for n > 2 is automatic function
>> inlining.  So, just use -O2.
>
>Which is from the man file, but is not true for pgcc (is it true for egcs?).
>
>Would -fno-inline not do what you want? I think that -fno-inline is
>merely a switch to disable -finline, so that it does not affect functions
>that are explicitly declared inline. So try -O6 -fno-inline.

FYI, someone wrote to tell me that -fno-inline-functions is the way to go.


*** Steve Snyder ***