[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2370) Path finding

["Raimar Falke via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 03:43:45PM -0800, rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx via RT wrote:
> At 08:57 AM 02/11/23 -0800, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> >
> >On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 07:52:45AM -0800, Per I. Mathisen via RT wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Raimar Falke via RT wrote:
> >> > First: inlining. It is critical that this is done. Gregory uses macros
> >> ...
> >> > while I use the inline keyword. Both can provide the same results.
> >> 
> >> That Greg's version does not need to open the inline can of worms is a
> >> good thing. If we do add inline at a later time, his macros can always be
> >> turned into functions at that time.
> >
> >I'm still for inline and I would like to restart the discussion.
> 
> <Begin discussion>
> Inline is very bad. 

> It is non-portable.

Show me a compiler which doesn't support it. To cope with different
syntax we have autoconf (which already has a test for it).

> It obscures the difference between functions and real inline code
> (like macros) because it is advisory and 

> not required for the compiler to actually inline.

This is correct.

> It does not optimize as well so even when inlined, the performance
> is not as good as macros.

Examples?

> Big inline functions are an abuse of the technique, when big is big is
> also ambiguous with inline in addition to the compiler issues above.

Not a real point.

> There is nothing good to say about inlining.
> <End discussion>

One valid point raised.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Windows: From the people who brought you edlin...