+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.
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
