🚀 go-pugleaf

"Chris" <Chris8852@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3ee37a56$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> I don't see why in Microsoft's VC++ that they would have a forceinline
then.
> It seems to bypass the cost/benefit analysis period, and it says there
> definitely is one, and I'm not sure how it does it.

With VC++, that is not really documented anywhere.   I'd guess the
cost/benefit analysis comes down to a comparison of generated
code size and/or ability to optimise though the inlined code.

> I still don't understand the behavior of inline in BCB as compared to
> Microsoft's VC++.
> For example, is inline in BCB equivelant to inline in Microsoft VC++? If
so,
> then there is no equivelant to forceinline?
>

inline in BCB (as in VC++, BTW) is based on the inline keyword in
ISO standard C++.  In the standard, inline is a hint to the compiler that
the compiler is free to ignore.  That's what happens in both VC++ and
BCB.

forceinline (which, incidentally isn't something I've come across) is
presumably a VC++ extension that is not supported by BCB, and is
not required to be.