[LLVMdev] calling conventions and inlining

[Reid Spencer]

Are you suggesting that we have "always_inline" and "never_inline"
keywoards that can be attributed to functions? If so, why do you want
this level of control? What's wrong with the current inlining pass?

Reid.

On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 20:34 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:
> As I've just seen that there are some things going on w.r.t the long 
> needed implementation of calling conventions, may I also ask if it's 
> possible to address inlining at the same moment (i.e. attributes 
> always_inline and noinline, but maybe LLVM wants a finer grained level 
> here) ?
> 
> I'd be willing to spend some work on this, but I need the help/pre-work 
> of an expert for the actual bytecode and core classes modifications.
> 
> Thanks,
> Markus
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050507/bb69f1eb/attachment.sig>