From: "Andrew Crabtree" <andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Function Sizes
Date: 19 Aug 1997 21:00:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <01bcace3$0aa8f590$45111d0f@ros51675cra>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970817195755 DOT 14271f-100000 AT is> <33F81C71 DOT D9650386 AT LSTM DOT Ruhr-UNI-Bochum DOT De>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ros51675cra.rose.hp.com
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

> And it will probably give you rubbish if the compiler
> decides to inline a function.
It would only inline it if it was static in most cases, plus the reference
to it
should force the compiler to keep an assembled version of it just to
resolve
the one &foo() casel

> BTW, is there a keyword
> to keep the compiler to do this on its own? Just
> the opposite of ``inline'' ?
-fno-inline-functions on the whole .c file should work.