Re: Patch to allow targets to prevent inlining

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

Geoff Keating writes:
 > > :  > 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.
 >
 > [...]
 > 
 > glibc needs this feature.  There are one or two places where some
 > functions must be inlined, and other functions must not, and they
 > all have to be in one C file (some of the ones that `must not' are the
 > ones that call the `must's :-( ).

You realize Nick's patch won't help with this, right?