Re: [RFA] gdb_ari.sh patch to eliminate wrong critical errors

[Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>]

'Daniel Jacobowitz' <drow at false.org> writes:
>> 1) inline	9	Do not use the inline attribute; 
>> since the compiler generally ignores this, better 
>> algorithm selection is needed to improved performance
>>   This problem is limited to three files:
>> vec.c (1) vec.h (7) and xtensa-tdep.c (1).
>> It could be easily removed, but I was wondering if 
>> there was a special reason why vec.h 
>> had some many.
>
> No really good reason.  The above is someone's particular opinion on
> the inline keyword (probably Andrew's, as he wrote the ARI stuff, but
> I don't know for sure who - maybe someone else on the list knows).
> vec.c / vec.h were written by Nathan for GCC, and the GCC project has
> a very different opinion on the use of the inline keyword.
>
> Perhaps the fact that the compiler sources think inline is worthwhile
> should give us a hint...

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with the ARI's opinion either.  GDB has
plenty of room for algorithmic improvements, but if adding an 'inline'
to a particular function made it go faster, why not use it?

Well, this is exactly why the ARI explicitly forbids us from taking it
seriously: to encourage people to disagree, debate and refine.  I
think that check should go.