Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: declarations in include files:  how do YOU feel?
Message-ID: <1989May17.173510.20413@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <179@larry.sal.wisc.edu> <10251@smoke.BRL.MIL> <181@larry.sal.wisc.edu> <5134@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17 May 89 17:35:10 GMT

In article <5134@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>...if a function is replaced with a macro, it is no longer in lib.a.

Not necessarily.  Standard library functions in fact are required to be
in both places.  Doing this for other functions would also seem sensible.

>Third, the size of the program increases as you replace functions
>with macros...

Not necessarily.  Calling sequences can take a non-trivial amount of
code, and they tend to interfere with optimizing compilers.  The macro
version can end up being smaller.

>Debugging is also affected adversely; ever try to put a breakpoint
>at a macro?

This is a generic problem with most forms of optimization.
-- 
Subversion, n:  a superset     |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
of a subset.    --J.J. Horning | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu