On 27/02/14 13:06, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Victor Stinner [mailto:victor.stinner at gmail.com] >> Sent: 27. febrúar 2014 10:47 >> To: Kristján Valur Jónsson >> Cc: Python-Dev (python-dev at python.org) >> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Start writing inlines rather than macros? >> In practice, recent versions of GCC and Clang are used. On Windows, it's >> Visual Studio 2010. I'm pretty sure that these compilers support inline >> functions. >> >> I'm also in favor of using inline functions instead of long macros using ugly >> hacks like "instr1,instr2" syntax where instr1 used assert(). See for example >> unicodeobject.c to have an idea of what horrible macros mean. >> >> I'm in favor of dropping C89 support and require at least C99. There is now >> C11, it's time to drop the old C89. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%28C_standard_revision%29 > > well, requiring C99 is another discussion which I'm not so keen on instigating :) > As you point out, most of our target platforms probably do support inline > already. My question is more of the nature: What about those that don't support > inline, is there any harm in defaulting to "static" in that case and leave the inlining > to the optimizer on those platforms? I agree, modern compilers will inline quite aggressively, so declaring a function static is as good as declaring it inline, provided the function is small. Static functions are a lot easier to read and maintain than LOUD_BUT_UNTYPED_MACRO(x) :) Cheers, Mark.
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