[LLVMdev] inlining hint

[Cédric Venet]

David Vandevoorde a écrit :
>
> I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want a C+ 
> + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline.
>
>   

You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. You don't have the 
choice in this case, just check your STL header.

>
> FWIW, I've been involved in a couple of attempts by commercial  
> compilers to relegate "inline" to the same status as "register" -- an  
> obsolete hint ignored by the compiler -- and so far that always proved  
> to be unpractical because some critical calls that were previously  
> inlined were no longer being inlined after the change.  (That's just  
> annecdotal, of course: LLVM may have gotten good enough to make it  
> practical.  If that's the case, I still think it's too early to write C 
> ++ code with that assumption.)
>   

There is often a keyword force_inline or alwais_inline if needed

Cédric