🚀 go-pugleaf

On 27 Dec 90 19:56:22 GMT, jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) said:

jimad> A complete list of keywords that I think could be possible candidates for
jimad> negation is:

jimad> [ ... ]
jimad> ~inline		do make this method outline -- IE a real function call.
jimad> [ ... ]

Let me home in on this. One problem of the current definition of
'inline' is that it specifies that every time the given function is
called, it should be inlined. In other words, 'inline' currently means
'can inline, *must* inline'. The problem I see with this is that, for
one of the two common reasons one wants to inline, in many cases
expanding inline a function is irrelevant -- it is only productive in a
few places, e.g. in inner loops, or where substantial opportunities for
code merging exist. Inlining a function everywhere, unless it is very
small, is just going to increase size with little benefit in speed.

What is probably needed (not for C++ though) is a distinction between
'inlinable' and 'inline', where the first is used
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk