Re: issue ALLOW-LOCAL-INLINE

[Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>]

    Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 18:52:30 MST
    From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)

    > I agree that it applies to that binding, but is that enough?  In the
    > case of a global function, doing the PROCLAIM after the DEFUN would also
    > apply to that binding, but it doesn't have the desired effect because of
    > temporal issues.

    I don't think there's a problem.  Unlike the DEFUN/PROCLAIM situation,
    in the FLET example the definition of the function and the INLINE
    declaration are simultaneous.  It's more analogous to a SPECIAL
    declaration in a LET, where the compiler has both the list of
    variables to be bound and the declarations available to decide whether
    the bindings should be special or lexical.  Here, the compiler has
    both the list of functions to be bound and the declarations available
    to decide whether or not to save inlining information about each of
    the functions.

    Remember that compilers are always free to ignore INLINE declarations.
    There is nothing wrong with Symbolics ignoring INLINE declarations for
    local functions (as long as it doesn't try to substitute an inline
    definition for a global function of the same name!).

    -Sandra
    -------

Sounds reasonable to me.  I was just looking for confirmation that I
have just cause to request this as an enhancement to the Symbolics
compiler, and that I would be asking for it in the right form.

                                                barmar