Yes, I saw it already. But I think standard preempts lite faq :) yours, anton.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Dean McNamee<[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/inline-functions.html#faq-9.9 > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Anton Muhin<[email protected]> wrote: >> Dean, are you sure? >> >> Holy standard says: >> >> A function declaration (8.3.5, 9.3, 11.4) with an inline specifier >> declares an inline function. The inline >> specifier indicates to the implementation that inline substitution of >> the function body at the point of call is to be preferred to the usual >> function call mechanism. An implementation is not required to perform >> this >> inline substitution at the point of call; however, even if this inline >> substitution is omitted, the other rules for >> inline functions defined by this subclause shall still be respected. >> >> (7.1.2, taken from ftp://ftp.research.att.com/pub/c++std/WP/CD2/) >> >> I just used the same style as around (placing inline modifier and >> embedding a body). I didn't embed bodies to minimize patch and as >> there are some deps on stuff declared below. >> >> Of course, if from stylistic point of view that's preferable to place >> inlines on defs, I'll do that. >> >> yours, >> anton. >> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Dean McNamee<[email protected]> wrote: >>> I am not sure this is right, the inline keyword goes on the >>> definition, not the declaration. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:35 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Oh, Christian just pointed out to me that these methods are template >>>> methods and therefore the implementation is in the header file. :-) >>>> >>>> LGTM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/159236 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
