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
