Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!rutgers!cmcl2!acf5!sabbagh
From: sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU (sabbagh)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: inline policy
Message-ID: <927@acf5.NYU.EDU>
Date: 14 Nov 89 14:41:24 GMT
References: <1520008@hpmwjaa.HP.COM> <1520010@hpmwjaa.HP.COM> <28966@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <1218@svx.SV.DG.COM> <2203@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Reply-To: sabbagh@acf5.UUCP ()
Organization: New York University
Lines: 22

In article <2203@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes:
>The inline keyword is a *hint* to the compiler, nothing more, nothing less.
>It is not a command.
>

OK, OK, I've resisted long enough.  Here's another reason for C++ source code
translators to DO inline expansions:

	-- To permit vectorizing C compilers to optimize loops.

I am working on a large numerical simulation of fluid flow.  I have
been pondering the use of C++ via cfront to generate Cray II code.
In order to maximize the use of the vectorizing C compiler, I _need_ some 
of the member functions associated with my Vector class to be inlined,
since the subroutine overhead is much larger than the two or three 
vector instructions needed to do things like dot products, etc. on the
Cray.

BTW, Walter: I just received Zortech 2.0 Developer's kit and am 
_very_ impressed. Keep up the excellent work.

-hgs