> > PS Neil Watkiss just pointed out to me that if I allowed the C 'inline'
> > keyword to be used, the compiler could inline the C function in the XS
> > wrapper. But he also points out that the complexity of getting from Perl
> > to an XSub is an order of magnitude greater than the extra C function
> > call.
>
> A small problem: C doesn't have an `inline' keyword (unless it's a
> brand-new C9X/C0X thing, in which case it'll take a few years until
> "most" compilers will support it).
>
> C++ has such a keyword.
That's true. It's a gcc extension: gcc will accept either "inline" or
"__inline__". Specifying the -ansi option turns off "inline", but still
allows "__inline__". My point is that Inline currently won't bind to this
function:
__inline__ SV* JAxH(char *x) {
return newSVpvf("Just Another %s Hacker", x);
}
Obviously writing code like this is not portable, and it's up to the
author to deal with that. Inline shouldn't be responsible for syntax
checking code anyway, that's what the compiler is for. If your compiler
doesn't know __inline__, you'll soon know about it.
Later,
Neil
