2009/5/20 Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org>: > Benjamin Peterson writes: > > 2009/5/20 <skip at pobox.com>: > > > > > I suspect it's not really germane to this discussion but if the > > > incref/decref functions were defined as inline would that effectively be > > > like using the macro versions vis a vis ABI compatibility? > > > > The code would be inlined into applications defeating the point of > > being able to change the implementation. :) > > Hang on, are you sure Skip isn't on to something? If the A*P*Is are > defined in such way that by making them *function calls* they preserve > A*B*I compatibility, while making them inline gives performance, then > the user (in this case, I really mean the vendor of an application > that contains C modules, I guess) can choose which route to go, right? In that case, they might as well be macros because changing would require recompiling. -- Regards, Benjamin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4