This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:30:38 -0200
- Subject: Re: -fno-inline-functions vs glibc's initfini
- References: <orr4yglksg.fsf@livre.localdomain><CAFiYyc3PTSq4raahD6cMnymO=SPkO3V1SLqBG3qrCBp1XqBeSQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Jan 31, 2012, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's probably confusing you is the "Don't pay attention to the
> @code{inline} keyword" sentence.
What really set me down the wrong patch were the comments in
gcc/common.opt, that got me the idea it had something to do with C99
inline.
; Nonzero means that functions declared `inline' will be treated
; as `static'. Prevents generation of zillions of copies of unused
; static inline functions; instead, `inlines' are written out
; only when actually used. Used in conjunction with -g. Also
; does the right thing with #pragma interface.
finline
Common Report Var(flag_no_inline,0) Init(0)
Pay attention to the \"inline\" keyword
> I suppose we should clarify the documentation and I will prepare a patch.
Thanks. Would you please take care of adjusting the comments in
common.opt accordingly? TIA,
> The implementation is exactly right
Phew! :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer