nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D68410#1694026 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68410#1694026>, @kristina wrote:
> Also, I'm fairly certain `__forceinline` and `always_inline`, confusingly > enough differ in semantics, with `__forceinline` only being a stronger hint > on MSVC. Does clang handle `__forceinline` vs `always_inline` differently, today? If not, then sounds like we may need to split these in two. In D68410#1696411 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D68410#1696411>, @joerg wrote: > I wonder if we should actually enumerate evil here, i.e. give the situations > in which inlining actually fails. Which is likely to change over time. I worry that enumerating such cases is compiler version specific, and might lead to developers depending/[ab]using that behavior? > As mentioned on IRC, I wonder if we shouldn't aim for the stronger semantics As long as we error when we fail to inline, I think that matches GCC's behavior. There's likely differences in what we can inline or not. > and at least warn by default of any situation that prevents always_inline > from doing its job. Might be hard to recognize all such cases in the frontend? GCC does warn via `-Wattributes` when the attribute is applied to a non-`inline` function. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68410/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68410 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
