Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!fwi.uva.nl!freek
From: freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Increment (Was Re: Pascal deficiency)?
Message-ID: <1530@carol.fwi.uva.nl>
Date: 24 Dec 90 15:32:21 GMT
References: <33019.27737F47@stjhmc.fidonet.org> <47576@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@fwi.uva.nl
Lines: 11

keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes:
>                  Another interesting thing is that empty() is
>reduced to a simple RTS. Should an optimizing compiler recognize
>that this is a null procedure, and remove the call to it altogether?

What happens if you declare empty static and compile the program with the
flag -finline-functions?  I do not have gcc for MPW, so I cannot try it
myself.  I am very curious what will be left.

Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk                      E-mail: freek@fwi.uva.nl
#P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**