On 11/20/2015 07:31 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > 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).
Especially in case of security fixes it would be a real pain to require all consumers of the library to recompile. This is one of the beauties of dynamic linking :-). So I would like to see it limited to very stable functions that exist for a long time unmodified and that have a small code base or we should give the developers a choice by offering both ways (inline + fn). Regards Rüdiger
