Re: inline failure with union POD

My mistake. I didn't have optimizations all the way up to max. It
works perfectly if I use -Ob2 meaning "inline any available".

The reason that its a bottleneck is that I'm writing a VM for a
scripting language, and if someone were to benchmark integer
arithmetic, it would be 50% slower without the inline, as I've already
discovered.

By the way, I have another posting about subrefing. I want to give
more information here:

struct EObject {
    int refcnt;

    virtual void Free () = 0;

    void SubRef ()
    {
        if (--refcnt == 0)
            Free();
    }
};

Lets say I have an EArray which is a fully derived EObject. Then, in
the following:

main {
    EObject* o = GetMyArrayPtr(); // widen
    o->SubRef(); // does NOT inline!!!
    EArray* ar = static_cast<EArray*>(o); // narrow
    ar->SubRef(); // does inline!!!
}

There seems to be no reason why the compiler would inline the fully
derived pointer but not inline the base class pointer when calling
SubRef(). This is so concerning that I may have to use macros for all
my SubRefs() or their equivalent. Isn't that terrible. The problem
with a macro is that it would have to use another temp variable which
may not be a register.

My overall complaint is that inlining means to me, just kind of macro
expand the function. Why should inlined functions ever not be
inlined, other than being too big? Isn't this the biggest
optimization that a compiler can make? It sure seems to be the most
important based on my profiling.

-Andy

--
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]