This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, martin at MPA-Garching dot MPG dot DE
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
> I already give the reasons at multiple occasions in this debate with
> the appropriate quotes.
> The reason is mostly historic (see "The Design and Evolution of C++",
> section "Run-Time Efficiency").
> When inlining was orginally introduced in C with Classes, the only
> syntax available was definition within the class declaration and
> inlining was considered only for member functions. Later, the keyword
> "inline" was introduced to permit inlining request for functions not
> defined within a class. There is no slight difference nor implication
> that one form is superior to the other in terms of request.
history is not normative!