Max (max@a.com) on 7/2/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>Michael S (already5chosen@yahoo.com) on 7/1/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>I don't think so. AFAIK, the following code is not legal in standard C90.
>>
>>int foo(int x)
>>{
>>x += 1;
>>int y = 10 * x;
>>y += 1;
>>return y;
>>}
>
>But this is...
>
>int foo(int x)
>{
>x += 1;
>{
>int y = 10 * x;
>y += 1;
>return y;
>}
>}
>
>A pet peeve of mine is that functions are external by default. So you have to declare
>almost all functions as "static", and if somebody is too lazy to do that you end
>up with global pollution and worse code (some compiler optimizations can't be done with external functions).


IMO, that's not the solution either, although it would help. The problem is that static functions only help if you have fairly large source modules. If you try to keep source modules fairly small, you tend to need many routines to have external linkage anyway.

A different grouping/namespace mechanism, one that's *not* related to the source files, is what's actually required, and the packaging of functions (methods) inside of classes in C++ deals with that quite well.

In any event, LTCG is the solution to the optimization issue.