Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2015, 13:10 +0200 schrieb Thomas Miedema:
INLINE[n] becomes INLINEFROM[n] NOINLINE[n] becomes NOINLINEBEFORE[n] INLINE[~n] becomes INLINEBEFORE[n] NOINLINE[~n] becomes NOINLINEFROM[n]
Still not great, because INLINE[n] doesn't inline before phase n either. Maybe we should make that explicit, and use 2 separate pragmas:
INLINE[n] becomes NO_INLINE_BEFORE[n], INLINE_FROM[n] NOINLINE[n] becomes NO_INLINE_BEFORE[n] INLINE[~n] becomes NO_INLINE_FROM[n], INLINE_BEFORE[n] NOINLINE[~n] becomes NO_INLINE_FROM[n]
(a combination of NO_INLINE_BEFORE[n] and INLINE_BEFORE[n], or NO_INLINE_FROM[n] and INLINE_FROM[n], would be an error)
I thought about that as well, but I can only fight it with more verbosity: INLINE[n] becomes ONLY_INLINE_FROM[n] NOINLINE[n] becomes ONLY_NOINLINE_BEFORE[n] INLINE[~n] becomes INLINE_BEFORE[n] NOINLINE[~n] becomes NOINLINE_FROM[n] And I am not even sure if ONLY_INLINE_FROM has the connotation of definite inlining to every reader...
If that is too verbose, we could make the 'no inline' part implicit:
INLINE[n] becomes INLINE_FROM[n] NOINLINE[n] becomes INLINEABLE_FROM[n] INLINE[~n] becomes INLINE_BEFORE[n] NOINLINE[~n] becomes INLINEABLE_BEFORE[n]
But INLINABLE has its own semantics (i.e. “do retain a copy of the RHS”), and NOINLNE does, as far as I know, not imply this. But maybe your idea works with NOINLINE[n] becomes MAY_INLINE_FROM[n] NOINLINE[~n] becomes MAY_INLINE_BEFORE[n] and if we have that, how about INLINE[n] becomes MUST_INLINE_FROM[n] INLINE[~n] becomes MUST_INLINE_BEFORE[n] for symmetry as well? We’ll get a nice bikeshed out of this! Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org