EricWF added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/experimental/coroutine:294
+
+inline _LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE
+noop_coroutine_handle noop_coroutine() _NOEXCEPT {
----------------
GorNishanov wrote:
> EricWF wrote:
> > GorNishanov wrote:
> > > lewissbaker wrote:
> > > > EricWF wrote:
> > > > > This should just be `_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY`. We try not to use
> > > > > `_LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE` in new code.
> > > > Should the same change be applied to the other usages of
> > > > `_LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE` in this file?
> > > > Should some of them be marked `constexpr` to be consistent with
> > > > `noop_coroutine_handle` member functions above?
> > > Those were added by @EricWF, so from my perspective they are immutable.
> > I'm not sure what I was thinking when I implemented these things with
> > `_LIBCPP_ALWAYS_INLINE`.
> @EricWF would you like me to do wholesale search-and-replace in coroutine
> header and make everything _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY. Though, strategic use
> of always_inline in coroutine_handle and related classes can allow heap
> allocation elision to work even in -O0
`_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY` implies always inline most of the time. I wouldn't
mind you replacing all instances in the header.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45121
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
