[Python-Dev] Start writing inlines rather than macros?
Stefan Krah
stefan at bytereef.org
Tue Mar 4 10:55:27 CET 2014
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Mar 4 10:55:27 CET 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Cherry-pick between Python 3.4 RC2 and final?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Reference cycles in Exception.__traceback__
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> wrote: > I do have one question though. Suppose you encounter a compiler that > doesn't understand the inline keyword, so you choose the static > declaration as Kristján suggested. The resulting Python executable > should be functionally correct, but if the optimizer doesn't happen to > inline a given static function you might be stuck with some bad > performance across-the-board (if it never inlines, or doesn't inline > where we really need it to), or only under some circumstances (as a > hypothetical example, inlining in dictobject.c, but not in ceval.c). > Is there a configurable way to tell if a compiler will inline > functions which are declared static, and possibly under what > conditions they might not? It might still be necessary to maintain > macros for those platforms. I think that all modern compilers can handle "static inline" in header files. If you have a compiler that cannot, chances are that the platform is horribly outdated and this particular performance issue will be relatively benign compared to other ones. Stefan Krah
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Cherry-pick between Python 3.4 RC2 and final?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Reference cycles in Exception.__traceback__
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list