This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: inline (Re: guile: going the way of DEATH)


Telford Tendys <telford@triangle.triode.net.au> writes:

> I'm tempted to say that non GCC compilers don't get a macro, they
> get a regular function and whatever speed sacrifice goes with that.
> This is easier to maintain but may upset some people.

I think it's a good approach.  Except that other compilers also
support inline functions... so some autoconf wizard shouls take a look.

> I'd be saying that unless you are using a compiler that has a better
> optimiser than the gcc optimiser then you can't be too interested in
> speed. Which other compilers have better optimisers than gcc?
> Do these compilers have some equivalent way of inlining functions?

There is frequently a better optimizing compiler than gcc.  At least,
in the graphics lab here, people use the SGI C++ compiler (partly
bcause it's faster).  There's aslo supposed to be some non-free C++
compiler for Linux (Kai C++?) whic has a really good optimizer.  C++
compilers all have an inline gizmo (which I believe operates
compatibly with GCC's), so probably most optimizing compilers do have
such a device.

Andrew