Re: Patch to allow targets to prevent inlining

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>]

> Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:binutils-unsubscribe-geoffk=cygnus.com@sourceware.cygnus.com>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com>
> List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/binutils/>
> List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.cygnus.com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:15:24 -0800
> From: Nick Clifton <nickc@cygnus.com>
> CC: binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> :  > Besides, just because it wouldn't be needed for naked
> :  > functions any more, there is no reason to suppose that individual
> :  > targets might not have other reasons for suppressing inlining.
> : 
> : Perhaps.  But complexity should alway be defered as long as possible.
> 
> True.
> 
> OK, you win.  But since adding a naked attribute the to generic part
> of gcc would increase the overall complexity of the compiler, I doubt
> it I would be able to persuade the steering committee to accept it
> unless several more ports wanted the feature.  Hmm, mnaybe we could
> start a campaign :-)

glibc needs this feature.  There are one or two places where some
functions must be inlined, and other functions must not, and they
all have to be in one C file (some of the ones that `must not' are the
ones that call the `must's :-( ).

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>