This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches

To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>
Subject: Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:25:13 -0500
Cc: Jim Blandy <jimb at cygnus dot com>,Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
References: <200103151850.KAA30796@bosch.cygnus.com> <nplmq63lb6.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com> <3AB13812.1DDF33AE@cygnus.com> <m21yryab7p.fsf@dynamic-addr-83-177.resnet.rochester.edu>


> Can I make them static inline functions, and keep them in the header,
> like the linux kernel does instead of macros?

Sad days are these when the Linux kernel is held up as an example of how
to improve a codes runtime performance ;-)

> Or should i just move them to functions in cp-abi.c?

This for now. As they say, get it running correctly and then get it
running fast :-)

	Andrew

References:
- Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches
  - From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain
- Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches
  - From: Jim Blandy
- Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches
  - From: Daniel Berlin

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]