From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Changes in GC and in pure space Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 20:34:17 +0200 Message-ID: <878sr3rjva.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <20190721193221.1964.53182@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190721193222.8C19E20BE2@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <83blxmqfkq.fsf@gnu.org> <9568ca7d-854f-1971-bbe8-03ba8c64af42@cs.ucla.edu> <83o9006rol.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="40985"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 04 20:35:40 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i5a83-000AWd-2c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 20:35:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36264 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i5a81-0001QF-Tk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:35:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60153) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i5a6y-0001Mk-1Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:34:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i5a6w-0006KV-CG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:34:31 -0400 Original-Received: from 195-159-176-226.customer.powertech.no ([195.159.176.226]:51134 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i5a6w-0006IX-5i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:34:30 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i5a6o-0008zd-VW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 20:34:22 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:tB5US49yaofhVc2BXrplqSLaHGM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:239844 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >> How portable is "INLINE" (and if it's portable enough, why do we use a >> macro for it)? If some platforms don't support it, and these macros >> become non-inline functions, those platforms will be punished by this >> kind of changes. > > I'm not sure if replacing INLINE with nothing at all would lead to much > worse code. Obviously, in some cases it will, but the optimizer should > generally still inline them anyway. At least in the C++ world, `inline' is used for putting function definitions on headers, not for inlining. There is a consensus from many years ago that the compiler is expected to do the right thing wrt inlining irrespectively of the presence or ausence of the keyword, the same way `register` is no longer used for overriding the compiler's register allocation system.