On Apr 1, 2005 11:07 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dale Johannesen wrote: > > Agree. (And documentation will be written.) > > Yay. It sounds like we're definitely on the same page. I think that as > long as we keep the semantics clear, this will be useful functionality. > > >> That's what I assumed. Anything finer than that is insane. :-) > > > > > > Actually there are cases where it makes sense: you could ask that a > > particular call be > > inlined, or a particular loop be unrolled N times. > > True. Consider my remark regarding insanity qualified to whole-function > optimizations. :-)
But the question is, do we want all this sort of #pragmas? It would surely better to improve the compilers decisions on applying certain optimizations. As usual, in most of the cases the compiler will be smarter than the user trying to override it (and hereby maybe only working around bugs in a particular compiler release). All opposition that applied to stuff like attribute((leafify)) (hi Gaby!) applies here, too. So what is your opinion to all this babysitting-the-compiler? Just wondering, Richard.
