inlining...

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/17/14, 6:26 AM, Manu wrote:
> On 15 March 2014 14:55, Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com
> <mailto:turkeyman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 15 March 2014 14:33, Daniel Murphy <yebbliesnospam at gmail.com
>     <mailto:yebbliesnospam at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         "Manu" <turkeyman at gmail.com <mailto:turkeyman at gmail.com>> wrote
>         in message
>         news:mailman.128.1394856947.__23258.digitalmars-d at puremagic.__com...
>
>              > Haven't we already agreed a pragma for force inline
>             should be > implemented. Or is
>              > that something I have dreamed?
>
>             It's been discussed. I never agreed to it (I _really_ don't
>             like it), but I'll take it if it's the best
>             I'm gonna get.
>
>             I don't like stateful attributes like that. I think it's
>             error prone, especially when it's silent.
>             'private:' for instance will complain if you write a new
>             function in an area influenced by the
>             private state and try and call it from elsewhere; ie, you
>             know you made the mistake.
>             If you write a new function in an area influenced by the
>             forceinline state which wasn't intended
>             to be inlined, you won't know. I think that's dangerous.
>
>
>         Huh?  The pragma could easily be restricted to apply to exactly
>         one function declaration, if that's what's desired.
>
>
>     Then why bother with a pragma?
>     It's just a special case for the sake of a special case... I don't
>     see why resist the language conventions. Where's the precedent for
>     that? It just sounds like it's asking to cause edge cases and
>     trouble down the line.
>     Is it gonna get messy when it involves with templates? What about
>     methods, sub-functions?
>
>
> *bump*
> I actually care about this a whole lot more than final-by-default right
> now ;)
>
> I'd like to think there's a possible solution to these problems that
> everyone agrees with.

I'd like to see a solution to inlining along the lines of "pliz pliz 
inline" (best effort) and "never inline".

Outlining only at a specific call site is seldom needed and when it is 
it's trivially achievable with a noinline function forwarding to the 
inline function. Inlining only at a specific call site is a tall order 
and essentially impossible if header generation had been used.


Andrei