+1
As long as we don’t require complete/100% C99 at this time. Microsoft only intends to implement the C99 subset that is also part of the recent C++ specs (or just easy to do) in Visual Studio, and in most cases it already does in the most recent version. But talking specifically about inline… I think it had that in VC 6.0/1998. Personally my interest stops below the VS 2008 version. I won’t object on breaking support for older versions. (This is +- what we support with Subversion. VS2005 should still work as there are not many differences with 2008, but nobody in the project tested anything older in a long time.) Bert From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] Sent: vrijdag 20 november 2015 19:32 To: APR Developer List <dev@apr.apache.org> Subject: Optimization, modern C and APR 2.0 onwards I'm wondering how the group would react to refactoring some of APR 2.0 to either offer inline code for many of our heavily consumed functions, or offering inline + fn implementations alongside one another? Would it still be necessary in this day and age to support C compilers that do not support inline at all, e.g. hide the inline declarations based on some macro switch leaving only the function stub? We can obviously debate the merits of which functions are most prime for optimization, including how mature each is (due to the fact that the user will be 'stuck' with the implementation until they recompile their own code against a new release of apr in the event of a bug or security fix). Thoughts? Bill