David Megginson writes: > > Without >inlined methods, we'll probably end up with a smaller fgfs executable, >more accurate debugging information, faster build times, and more >readable headers, etc. > >If we default to out-of-line code, then we can profile later and >inline only in the spots where it actually helps.
In general I think that this is a good policy however IMHO Simon Fowler posted a gem :-) """ The first patch should be against Documentation/CodingStyle. What are we trying to achieve here? What are the guidelines for when-to and when-to-not? I'd say: - If a function has a single call site and is static then it is always correct to inline. - If a function is very small (20-30 bytes) then inlining is correct even if it has many call sites. - If a function is less-small, and has only one or two *commonly called* call sites, then inlining is OK. - If a function is a leaf function, then it is more inlinable than a function which makes another function call. === added by NHV === Otherwise leave it a normal function call ! """ Also note that most FGFS functions are only called once or twice per iteration of the main loop A 'few' more 'interesting' ones are called MANY TIMES per iteration of the loop. IMHO these if they meet the above criteria are 'candidates' for inline-ing Cheers Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
