On 11/03/2017 01:37 AM, jiang.bi...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>> On 11/02/2017 12:23 PM, jiang.bi...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>>> No, :) Just found some of these functions are inline and others are not
>>> when reading
>>> the code, the style looks inconsistent.
>>>
>> My preference would be to remove them all.
> On 11/02/2017 12:23 PM, jiang.bi...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > No, :) Just found some of these functions are inline and others are not
> > when reading
> > the code, the style looks inconsistent.
> >
> My preference would be to remove them all.
Should I commit another patch to do that? :)
> > Besid
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/02/2017 12:23 PM, jiang.bi...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>> No, :) Just found some of these functions are inline and others are not when
>> reading
>> the code, the style looks inconsistent.
>
> My preference would be to remove them all.
If
On 11/02/2017 12:23 PM, jiang.bi...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> No, :) Just found some of these functions are inline and others are not when
> reading
> the code, the style looks inconsistent.
My preference would be to remove them all.
> Besides, The compiler may make default inline choices for some f
> On 11/02/2017 11:26 AM, Jiang Biao wrote:> > Make some functions inline.
>
> Why?
>
> Do you have evidence that the compiler isn't making reasonable default choices
> with respect to inlining?
No, :) Just found some of these functions are inline and others are not when
reading
the code, the s
On 11/02/2017 11:26 AM, Jiang Biao wrote:
> Make some functions inline.
Why?
Do you have evidence that the compiler isn't making reasonable default choices
with respect to inlining?
r~
Make some functions inline.
Signed-off-by: Jiang Biao
---
tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c | 18 +-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c b/tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c
index 4b55ab8..f83a8ec 100644
--- a/tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c
+++ b/tcg
