Re: Patch to allow targets to prevent inlining

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

Nick Clifton writes:
 > Hi Doug,
 > 
 > :  > Besides, just because it wouldn't be needed for naked
 > :  > functions any more, there is no reason to suppose that individual
 > :  > targets might not have other reasons for suppressing inlining.
 > : 
 > : Perhaps.  But complexity should alway be defered as long as possible.
 > 
 > True.
 > 
 > OK, you win.  But since adding a naked attribute the to generic part
 > of gcc would increase the overall complexity of the compiler, I doubt
 > it I would be able to persuade the steering committee to accept it
 > unless several more ports wanted the feature.  Hmm, mnaybe we could
 > start a campaign :-)

Pick any target-independent attribute, they've all increased the
complexity of the compiler.  Implicit in my point is my belief that
the `naked' attribute is generally useful.  Useful complexity is called a
feature. :-)