ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes: t...@gmplib.org writes: > Not sure why we're doing this as an inline function in gmp.h. > > Me neither. Perhaps as it is tiny? I think inlines in gmp.h makes sense for functions which are tiny and O(1) in the common case, like mpn_add_1 and mpn_cmp. Or small O(1) wrappers around O(n) functions, like mpn_add. Any other criteria? I agree (without having looked deeply into how these things work today).
Some of the decisions were reasonable at the time they were made; mpn_neg presumably saved some O(1) time before there were wide memops. (Then one may ask how many programs depend measurably on any such mpn_neg savings.) The current mpn_neg isn't of that type, but maybe it could be if it defers the main work to mpn_com. I think we could as well leave it, but make changes as per Marco's or your suggestion. I think your suggestion will actually inline less code, so I'd vote for that. -- Torbjörn Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622 _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel