Re: Is inlining evil?

quale@cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale)
Sat, 4 May 91 19:09:05 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Is inlining evil? mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) (1991-05-03)
Re: Is inlining evil? hoelzle@neon.Stanford.EDU (1991-05-04)
Re: Is inlining evil? quale@cs.wisc.edu (1991-05-04)
Re: Is inlining evil? clark@ingr.com (Clark Williams) (1991-05-05)
Re: Is inlining evil? mjs@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) (1991-05-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: quale@cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale)
Keywords: optimize, design
Organization: University of Wisconsin -- Madison
References: <1991May1.035622.25021@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <19 <9105031304.AA00625@slave.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Sat, 4 May 91 19:09:05 GMT

In article <9105031304.AA00625@slave.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at> Michael K. Gschwind<mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
>Inline functions are far superior to macros (C hackers, please don't flood
>my mailbox ;-) in avoiding unwanted side effects, because they are
>supposed to have identical semantics when compared to `normal' functions.


This is certainly true, but it is largely due to the impotence of the C
preprocessor. Languages such as Lisp that have more powerful
macroprocessors do not have the multiple evaluation of parameters problem
so common in C macros. Unfortunately Lisp macros have their problems too,
but at least you can do something useful with them....


-- Doug Quale
quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.