[LLVMdev] inlining hint

Devang Patel devang.patel at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 11:54:23 PDT 2009


On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> wrote:
> You may have noticed I added an "inlinehint" attribute to the IR
> yesterday, to represent user declarations that hint inlining would be
> a good idea ("inline" keyword).  Chris and I have been discussing how
> to hook it up to the C++ FE.  Consider:
>
> class X {
>    int A(int x) {....}
>    inline int B(int x);
> };
> inline int X::B(int x) {...}
>
> Per the language standard, A and B are semantically identical, both
> "inline".  It's been suggested that we should omit the inlinehint on
> A, on the grounds that many C++ programmers do not know this, and
> therefore misuse the construct.   I want to get some other views on
> this.  Do you think it's a good idea?
> (For those of you who consider yourselves C++ programmers - and not FE
> language lawyers, who are supposed to know what the standard says -
> did you know this?)

I do not understand how the "inlinehint" will help.  How will it
influence the inliner ?

-
Devang




More information about the llvm-dev mailing list