Hi- On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 10:26 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi, > > Ken Raeburn <raeb...@raeburn.org> writes: > > > On Aug 16, 2009, at 18:13, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >>> There's always the inline-function approach, too. > >> > >> Unfortunately no, because we're still not assuming `inline' keyword > >> support from the compiler. > > > > Right, but inline.h deals with that; if "inline" isn't supported you > > just get a declaration and make a function call. There would be a > > performance hit from doing the function calls all the time, > > Yes, I'm not sure that's something worth trying.
On my system I ran a test with SCM_MAKE_CHAR as a macro, an an inline, and as a never inlined function. I ran ./check-guile twice for each. SCM_MAKE_CHAR as macro, ./check-guile gives real 0m22.680s 0m22.658s user 0m7.700s 0m7.640s sys 0m1.067s 0m1.124s SCM scm_i_make_char (scm_t_int32 x) __attribute__((noinline)) real 0m22.010s 0m21.998s user 0m7.631s 0m7.648s sys 0m1.151s 0m1.076s SCM inline scm_i_make_char (scm_t_int32 x) real 0m22.107s 0m21.914s user 0m7.614s 0m7.726s sys 0m1.115s 0m1.068s The timing differences between them seem to be in the noise, for this one test. Thanks, Mike
