Re: Dynamic size spec for widgets
Martin Buchholz <martin(a)xemacs.org> writes:
- no inline support.
- gcc historic inline support
- C9x standard inline
- C++ standard inline
[...]
Rule: if you have a static function, and you want to provide a
special hint for the compiler that this function _really_ should be
inlined (e.g if the function is known to be very frequently called),
I think you can currently do that _portably_ in the sources like
this:
static inline ....
I've been told that in C++ `inline' means `static inline'. Do all C++
compilers grok `static inline'?
As for renaming INLINE to INLINE_HEADER, that does seem like a safer
name, but I don't think it's worth making this global change now.
I think it is. And it's especially important to *document* what it
means. The annoying thing about the INLINE confusion is that it crops
up time and again, by different people and with different code.