On Mon, 9 Sept 2024 at 17:19, Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 9/8/24 22:26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > >> Why do you think this is an improvement? > > > > It just feels more natural, so to say. > > > >> What was wrong with the function pointers? > > > > Not exactly wrong. It just hurts my eyes when I see an address > > is taken of a function marked `inline` > > I'm certainly happy to fix that! > > > (though I understand well > > this keyword is just a hint and the compiler is free to omit > > inlining). Also the typedefs are a bit ugly. > > I think the macro is uglier than the typedef.
This was my opinion also. Plus the compiler generates reasonable code with our current source, and the code path isn't a hot one. thanks -- PMM
