inlining...

[Manu]

On 21 March 2014 00:10,
<7d89a89974b0ff40.invalid at internationalized.invalid>wrote:

> Please note that 1 level mixin is not sufficient in the case of libraries.
> In too many cases you will not inline the function that does the work, only
> the interface wrapper.
>

I don't think I would ever want to inline the whole call tree of a library.
I've certainly never wanted to do anything like that in 20 years or so, and
I've worked on some really performance critical systems, like amiga,
dreamcast, ps2.
It still sounds really sketchy. If the function that does the work is a few
levels deep, then there is probably a good reason for that. What if there's
an error check that writes log output or something? Or some branch that
leads to other uncommon paths?

I think you're making this problem up. Can you demonstrate where this has
been a problem for you in the past?
The call tree would have to be so very particular for this to be
appropriate, and then you say this is a library, which you have no control
over... so the call tree is just perfect by chance? What if the library
changes?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140321/97aa475b/attachment.html>