On 20.11.2015 19:53, Bert Huijben wrote: > +1 > > > > As long as we don’t require complete/100% C99 at this time. > > > > Microsoft only intends to implement the C99 subset that is also part of the > recent C++ specs (or just easy to do) in Visual Studio, and in most cases it > already does in the most recent version. > > > > But talking specifically about inline… I think it had that in VC 6.0/1998.
Microsoft C/C++ 6.0 as a matter of fact ... on DOS, 10 years earlier, a couple years before Visual C++ 1.0. :) > Personally my interest stops below the VS 2008 version. I won’t object on > breaking support for older versions. > > (This is +- what we support with Subversion. VS2005 should still work as > there are not many differences with 2008, but nobody in the project tested > anything older in a long time.) > > > > Bert > > > > From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] > Sent: vrijdag 20 november 2015 19:32 > To: APR Developer List <dev@apr.apache.org> > Subject: Optimization, modern C and APR 2.0 onwards > > > > I'm wondering how the group would react to refactoring some of APR 2.0 > > to either offer inline code for many of our heavily consumed functions, > > or offering inline + fn implementations alongside one another? > > > > Would it still be necessary in this day and age to support C compilers > > that do not support inline at all, e.g. hide the inline declarations based > > on some macro switch leaving only the function stub? > > > > We can obviously debate the merits of which functions are most > > prime for optimization, including how mature each is (due to the > > fact that the user will be 'stuck' with the implementation until they > > recompile their own code against a new release of apr in the event > > of a bug or security fix). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Bill > >
