Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Feb 27, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: | > Interesting. You of course know Gaby is always claiming the exact | > opposite: That the compiler must *honor* the inline keyword (explicit | > or "implicit", ie. inline in class definitions), that inline is not | > a hint but an order that the compiler must follow. | > And much to my own surprise, I'm actually beginning to agree with him. | | I always say that inline is like register, it is just a hint to the
I may account that for partly responsible of the current state. inline will be like register, if and when we achieve the same maturity level as we do for register allocation. And then, it might just die or be recycled (like "auto"). But, at the moment we're not even remotely near that state. Inline isn't just like register. Yes, I know the claim "the next releave will make inline void of semantics". That has been made consistently for 25 years now, since it was invented for C++. -- Gaby
