> Wait, no. Didn't we get to the point that we figured out that the > primary issue is the reversal of the order of what is checked is the > primary problem, rather than the macro/inline piece?
Reversal of the order makes a small or no difference. The macro/inline change causes the real slowdown at least on GCC. > Nor do I see how it's going to be ok to just rename the function in a > stable branch. I'll post another version to keep them around.
