[LLVMdev] inlining hint

[Óscar Fuentes]

Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> writes:

[snip]

> Per the language standard, A and B are semantically identical, both  
> "inline".  It's been suggested that we should omit the inlinehint on  
> A, on the grounds that many C++ programmers do not know this, and  
> therefore misuse the construct.   I want to get some other views on  
> this.  Do you think it's a good idea?
> (For those of you who consider yourselves C++ programmers - and not FE  
> language lawyers, who are supposed to know what the standard says -  
> did you know this?)

Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but for me methods defined
inside the class definition are inline and I would be dissapointed if
the compiler thinks otherwise (unless it knows that inlining would cause
inferior performance or is technically unfeasible: the Borland compiler
used to refuse inlining on some circunstances, such as when the function
contained a `throw').

After all, `inline' is like `register': just a wish that the compiler
can ignore, but a compiler shouldn't disregard the standard just for not
creating surprises to uninformed users, IMO.

-- 
Óscar