Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But is usually much easier add entropy - so start with its the same > function - call it, and let compiler decide which ones to expand. You'll get no argument on that point. Please stop suggesting that I want to take the power of decision away from programmers *OR* compilers. > >If someone else wants to prove this, great. I just don't think it's > >that much trouble. (mostly psychological - what will people think if > >they see that all our code is in headers and all our C files are > >autogenerated?) > > We can unlink the .c files once we have compiled them ;-) Nope. Messes up source debuggers.
- Re: inline mania Nick Ing-Simmons
- performance of inlined code (w... John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Dan Sugalski
- Nick's performance theory - wa... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Nick's performance theory ... John Tobey
- Re: Nick's performance theory ... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Nick's performance theory ... John Tobey
- Re: Nick's performance theory ... Alan Burlison
- Re: inline mania Joshua N Pritikin
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- RE: inline mania Brent Fulgham
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Alan Burlison
- Re: inline mania John Tobey
- Re: inline mania Alan Burlison