From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22483 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2009 02:19:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 22427 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2009 02:19:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:19:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136AC107C8; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:19:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF471106AA; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:19:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ln1fh-0007aV-7m; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:19:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:22:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' Subject: Re: GDB ARIndex cleanup Message-ID: <20090327021949.GB29050@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, 'Eli Zaretskii' References: <000001c9ae14$24fb7cd0$6ef27670$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090326230959.GN9472@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090326230959.GN9472@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00609.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 04:09:59PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 1) "inline" > > for inline, someone once said that the rule that we should not use > > "inline" keyword is old, and maybe not correct anymore. > > > > If everyone agrees that this rule should stay, I will be happy to > > commit an obvious fix removing all of them as this seems quite > > mechanical, but I wanted to get some feedback first. > > I don't know much about the effectiveness of using "inline". > I personally tend to avoid it, because I trust the compiler to determine > whether an inline will help or not. So I'm OK either way. My two cents: in practice, it's still useful. I don't think we need a rule banning it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery