Ryan Joseph via fpc-pascal <fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> schrieb am Mo., 8. Nov. 2021, 15:31:
> > > > On Nov 8, 2021, at 1:27 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal < > fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote: > > > > And there you have it (simplified obviously). As long as the compiler > can determine *at compile time* the code of the function (and the function > is inlineable) it should in theory be able to inline it. This is true no > matter if it's a function variable, a method variable (pointing to a > non-virtual method) or an anonymous function. However if somewhere between > passing in the function address and calling the function inlining does not > work for one reason or the other (e.g. due to open array parameters which > are currently not supported by inlining) then the compiler obviously can't > inline the provided function either. > > Interesting, so the inlining the containing function is the key. I guess > if the container were not inlined it would basically be like a generic > where a new function body would be generated which contained the inline > function pointers body with arguments replaced. > I don't know what you mean with "new function body". If a function is inlined its code is contained within the surrounding function and if it's not inlined then nothing changes. Regards, Sven
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
