philnik777 wrote: > This doesn't seem all that useful/important to me - a user can move the body > of the function into an implementation unit rather than putting it in the > interface unit and marking it noinline, right? This is the same > recommendation we'd make if someone wrote a complex function definition in a > header - and I think it's fine that the advice remains valid/relevant even in > a modules build.
I think this makes a lot of sense for things like `string`, which requires all function definitions to be available for `constexpr` and template reasons, but we want to mark some functions as `noinline` for better optimizations. We haven't done that yet in libc++, but we'll have to at some point to address some regressions from making `string` `constexpr` in C++20. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68501 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
