[gil] GIL_FORCEINLINE replaced with BOOST_FORCEINLINE?
Hi, In boost/gil/gil_config.hpp, there is GIL_FORCEINLINE defined, but there is no easy way to undef/redefine it. Would it be a good idea to replace GIL_FORCEINLINE with BOOST_FORCEINLINE defined in boost/config/suffix.hpp? Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Hi Mateusz,
In boost/gil/gil_config.hpp, there is GIL_FORCEINLINE defined, but there is no easy way to undef/redefine it.
Would it be a good idea to replace GIL_FORCEINLINE with BOOST_FORCEINLINE defined in boost/config/suffix.hpp?
OK, will put it on my todo list. Christian
On 12 March 2013 18:15, Christian Henning
In boost/gil/gil_config.hpp, there is GIL_FORCEINLINE defined, but there is no easy way to undef/redefine it.
Would it be a good idea to replace GIL_FORCEINLINE with BOOST_FORCEINLINE defined in boost/config/suffix.hpp?
OK, will put it on my todo list.
Christian, I was actually hoping to receive answer if it is a good idea at all. Perhaps my understanding of purpose of BOOST_FORCEINLINE is biased. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On 12 March 2013 20:58, Christian Henning
I was actually hoping to receive answer if it is a good idea at all. Perhaps my understanding of purpose of BOOST_FORCEINLINE is biased.
I don't see much difference in both versions. I'll adapt BOOST_FORCEINLINE so I don't have to worry about gil's version. ;-)
Works for me, thank you. It will me help to silent Visual C++ warning C4714: function 'function' marked as __forceinline not inlined Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
On 12/03/13 18:41, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
Hi,
In boost/gil/gil_config.hpp, there is GIL_FORCEINLINE defined, but there is no easy way to undef/redefine it.
I initially added the ability to redefine BOOST_FORCEINLINE to allow people to disable force-inlining for certain debugging scenarios.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Mathias Gaunard
On 12/03/13 18:41, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
In boost/gil/gil_config.hpp, there is GIL_FORCEINLINE defined, but there is no easy way to undef/redefine it. I initially added the ability to redefine BOOST_FORCEINLINE to allow people to disable force-inlining for certain debugging scenarios.
Shouldn't GIL_FORCEINLINE be defined as BOOST_FORCEINLINE by default? That way BOOST_FORCEINLINE would take effect by default but could be overridden specifically for GIL. Another thing is, I like defining different macros that match the function they're used with, e.g. BOOST_INLINE_CRITICAL, BOOST_INLINE_TRIVIAL, etc.which have a default mapping to inline or BOOST_FORCEINLINE. That allows for a little bit more flexibility when tinkering with inlining as a result of profiling. -- Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
participants (4)
-
Christian Henning -
Emil Dotchevski -
Mateusz Loskot -
Mathias Gaunard