Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (FWIW, it seems on many of the modern > processors that inlining code decreases your performance, so I think > deciding on stuff like that is rather premature) Is foo() compiled any differently in inline i_foo() { BLA; BLA; BLA; } foo() { i_foo(); } versus foo() { BLA; BLA; BLA; } ? I am not talking about forcing inlined functions down anyone's throat. Non-inline functions have their place in reducing code size and easing debugging. I just want an i_foo for every foo that callers will have the option of using. -- John Tobey, late nite hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \\\ /// ]]] With enough bugs, all eyes are shallow. [[[ /// \\\
- Re: inline mania Nick Ing-Simmons
- XS shortcomings (was Re: inline mania) John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Sam Tregar
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Simon Cozens
- Forging ahead alone (or "I can rewrite perl mys... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Forging ahead alone (or "I can rewrite perl... John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Simon Cozens
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Re: inline mania Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: inline mania John Tobey