Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!apple!keith
From: keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Increment (Was Re: Pascal deficiency)?
Message-ID: <47610@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 90 00:45:49 GMT
References: <33019.27737F47@stjhmc.fidonet.org> <47576@apple.Apple.COM> <1530@carol.fwi.uva.nl>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 31

In article <1530@carol.fwi.uva.nl> freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes:
>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.

Pretty slick! The program:

static void empty(int i) {};
main() { int i = 1; empty(++i); };

reduces to:

Module:            Flags=$00=(Local Code)  Module="main%"(1) Segment="Main"(2)
00000000: 4E56 0000      'NV..'            LINK       A6,#$0000
00000004: 4E5E           'N^'              UNLK       A6
00000006: 4E75           'Nu'              RTS        

Now...I wonder why the LINK/UNLK are still there. I also used -mbg off, so
it's not for debugging purposes...

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rollin  ---  Apple Computer, Inc.  ---  Developer Technical Support
INTERNET: keith@apple.com
    UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith
"Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions