On 09/07/13 03:20, JonY wrote: > On 9/7/2013 08:44, dw wrote: >> However, if that's not acceptable, perhaps there is an alternative. If >> the requirement I'm violating here is simply that these specific >> functions must be able to support not being inlined, then I believe >> simply changing them from "FORCEINLINE" to "inline" would satisfy this >> requirement. It seems like having them in the library is still >> redundant. Would this change make the deletions acceptable? >> > He probably wants a fallback for when headers are not included. Yes > these are lower performance counterparts, will be used in the worst case > scenario only.
That doesn't make sense IMO. This is the reason for having intrin functions in mingwex, which are designed to be provided by compiler and don't require includes, but this case is about random inline functions, not intrins. Jacek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
