... | ... | @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ NOINLINE[~n] becomes NOINLINE_FROM[n] |
|
|
The choice of “from” and “before” over (as was proposed as well) ”after” is that with “after” it is not so clear what should happen in stage `n`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Con: doesn't solve the asymmetry problem.
|
|
|
Con: `INLINE_FROM[n]` and `NOINLINE_FROM[n]` are still asymmetric (don't affect the same phases), as are `INLINE_BEFORE[n]` and `NOINLINE_BEFORE[n]`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Proposal 2
|
|
|
|
... | ... | @@ -81,12 +81,12 @@ NOINLINE[~n] becomes MAY_INLINE_BEFORE[n] |
|
|
## Alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of adding such wordy pragmas, can we maybe make the content of the `[..]` more helpful, by allowing more complex specification of phase ranges there?
|
|
|
Instead of adding such wordy pragmas, we can maybe make the content of the `[..]` more helpful, by allowing more complex specification of phase ranges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Using comparison operators
|
|
|
### Proposal 3b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposal 3b would look like this (note that phases count down):
|
|
|
Using comparis operators (note that phases count down):
|
|
|
|
|
|
```wiki
|
|
|
INLINE[n] becomes INLINE <= n
|
... | ... | |