Fair enough - thank you for the insight.
To clarify, it is easy enough to demand "inline" appear in the interface
section, but it breaks a lot of pre-existing code. I'll have a think
about how to implement the alternative solution of "implementation-only
inline" only affecting the routine
Ah, found it. It was buried in the "noise" and me having a bit of a bad
time mentally at the time.
https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35346
The patches in that issue fix the inlined methods for
compiler/cstreams.pas and compiler/entfile.pas so that "inline" appears
in the interface
That's a point, true. I've been for openness a lot lately, and one
doesn't normally distribute the PPU files with a closed-source project,
but I guess for those programs that need compiling on Linux before they
can be run, it's not very desirable if the PPU files contain information
on, say,
Am 23. Juni 2019 16:05:05 schrieb Jonas Maebe :
> On 23/06/2019 01:10, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
>
>> Currently, you can get away with specifying the "inline" directive for a
>> function in just the implementation section of a unit, and the function
>> will be inlined. However, in some
On 23/06/2019 01:10, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
> Currently, you can get away with specifying the "inline" directive for a
> function in just the implementation section of a unit, and the function
> will be inlined. However, in some situations, this can cause compiler
> crashes which I believe is
Am 23.06.2019 um 01:10 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
This one is for Jonas in particular, but also to address a minor issue
in general.
Currently, you can get away with specifying the "inline" directive for
a function in just the implementation section of a unit, and the
function will be
This one is for Jonas in particular, but also to address a minor issue
in general.
Currently, you can get away with specifying the "inline" directive for a
function in just the implementation section of a unit, and the function
will be inlined. However, in some situations, this can cause
