On Sunday 27 February 2005 23:14, Richard Guenther wrote: > While in theory this could work well, existing code-bases (such as > POOMA) are notoriously bad in consistently using "inline" (or not). > I > guess such scheme would work great for most C people, as C people > generally think twice before using inline or not (at least this is > my experience). I'd rather have the C++ frontend ignore "inline" > completely and enable -finline-functions by default and tell people > to use profile-directed inlining that we probably get for 4.1.
Interesting. You of course know Gaby is always claiming the exact opposite: That the compiler must *honor* the inline keyword (explicit or "implicit", ie. inline in class definitions), that inline is not a hint but an order that the compiler must follow. And much to my own surprise, I'm actually beginning to agree with him. Gr. Steven
