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] |
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