From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: aaro@iki.fi (Aaro Koskinen) Subject: Re: Optimizing recursion (was Re: Why C++ is successful) Date: 1998/08/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 384922809 References: <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35cb8058.645630787@news.ne.mediaone.net> <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <35E32841.49A5343D@fv.com> Organization: University of Helsinki Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1998-08-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Darren New writes: > Why wouldn't the compiler just generate the best code that is > sematically equivalent to the Ada source? Why does the author of the > code have to tell the compiler that the *author* thinks it's more > efficient to expand the routine inline than to call it as a function? Because sometimes the most efficient code is not the best code. For example, you may not want to have a routine inlined if you want to make your code smaller or easier to patch. -- Aaro Koskinen, aaro@iki.fi, http://www.iki.fi/aaro