faure at kde.org
Tue Oct 30 11:07:16 GMT 2012
On Friday 26 October 2012 17:04:33 Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 10:16:50 Frank Reininghaus wrote:
> > > I was thinking the first one, but indeed Qt often does the second one,
> > > I'm not sure what the difference really is. Either one is fine with me.
> > in the end, I did not inline the function - before I pushed the
> > commit, I wondered whether making a non-inline function inline is
> > guaranteed to be binary compatible. According to Techbase, it's not:
> > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C++#The_
> > Do .27s_and_Don.27ts
> More specifically, the non-inlined version needs to exist.
Oh OK, that sounds complicated for not much gain, you're right to have skipped
> The compiler is
> still within its rights to actually inline the code if possible (unless you
> mark it as no_inline, which takes extra effort on your part).
> Or in other words, the compiler might do the right thing for you regardless.
Might --- or might not :-)
David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5
More information about the kde-core-devel