inline-functions

Visual Studio includes support for __forceinline. The Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 documentation states: The __forceinline keyword overrides the cost/benefit analysis and relies on the judgment of the programmer instead. This raises the question: When is the compiler's cost/benefit analysis wrong? And, how am I supposed to know that it's wrong? In what scenario is it assumed that I know better than my compiler on this issue? The compiler is making its decisions based on static code analysis, whereas if you profile as don says, you are carrying out a dynamic analysis that can be much farther

This question already has an answer here: Decrementing a pointer out of bounds; incrementing it into bounds [duplicate] 3 answers Why is out-of-bounds pointer arithmetic undefined behaviour? 7 answers I found this problem in a very large application, have made an SSCCE from it. I don't know whether the code has undefined behavior or -O2 breaks it. When compiling it with gcc a.c -o a.exe -O2 -Wall -Wextra -Werror it prints 5 . But it prints 25 when compiling without -O2 (eg -O1 ) or uncommenting one of the 2 commented lines (prevent inlining). #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> // _

I know that an inline function will maybe improve performance & cause the generated code to grow, but I'm not sure when it is correctly to use it. lock(l) { foo() } Instead of creating a function object for the parameter and generating a call, the compiler could emit the following code. ( Source ) l.lock() try { foo() } finally { l.unlock() } but I found that there is no function object created by kotlin for a non-inline function. why? /**non-inline function**/ fun lock(lock: Lock, block: () -> Unit) { lock.lock(); try { block(); } finally { lock.unlock(); } } Let's say you create a higher

What's the difference between inline function and then main like so: inline double cube(double side) { return side * side * side; } int main( ) { cube(5); } vs just declaring a function regularly like: double cube(double side) { return side * side * side; } int main( ) { cube(5); } vs function prototype? double cube(double); int main( ) { cube(5); } double cube(double side) { return side * side * side; } An inline function can be defined in multiple translation units (cpp file + includes), and is a hint to the compiler to inline the function. It is usually placed in a header which increases

I'm very new to the swift language I wanted to declare an inline function just like in c++ so my fun declaration is like func MyFunction(param: Int) -> Int { ... ... ... } and I want ti do something like inline func MyFunction(param: Int) -> Int { ... ... ... } I tried to search on the web but I didn't find anything relevant maybe there is no inline keyword but maybe there is another way to inline the function Many thanks :) Swift 1.2 will include the @inline attribute, with never and __always as parameters. For more info, see here . As stated before, you rarely need to declare a function

Does LLVM automatically convert Objective-C methods to inline functions when possible? (I.e., is it just as performant to create an Objective-C method for a block of code that you could otherwise paste inline?) If LLVM doesn't perform this optimization, why not? If it does, (a) are there certain build settings I must set for this to happen? (b) How can I tell if an Objective-C method will be inlined? No, because its impossible to know in the context of the Obj-C runtime if those kind of optimizations can be performed. The thing to remember is that Obj-C methods are invoked by a message send,

I just realized that doing x.real*x.real+x.imag*x.imag is three times faster than doing abs(x)**2 where x is a numpy array of complex numbers. For code readability, I could define a function like def abs2(x): return x.real*x.real+x.imag*x.imag which is still far faster than abs(x)**2, but it is at the cost of a function call. Is it possible to inline such a function, as I would do in C using macro or using inline keyword? Is it possible to inline such a function, as I would do in C using macro or using inline keyword? No. Before reaching this specific instruction, Python interpreters don't

I want to define an inline function in a project, compiled with c99. How can I do it? When I declare the function in a header file and give the detail in a .c file, the definition isn't recognized by other files. When I put the explicit function in a header file, I have a problem because all .o files who use it have a copy of the definition, so the linker gives me a "multiple definition" error. What I am trying to do is something like: header.h inline void func() { do things... } lib1.c #include "header.h" ... lib2.c #include "header.h" with a utility which uses both lib1.o and lib2.o