|
|
|
Back
Midas
Rome
Roody
Rootana
|
| Midas DAQ System |
Not logged in |
 |
|
|
 21 Aug 2009, Exaos Lee, Forum, Link error of "mcnaf"
|
 21 Aug 2009, Konstantin Olchanski, Forum, Link error of "mcnaf"
| |
31 Aug 2009, Exaos Lee, Forum, Link error of "mcnaf"
| |
31 Aug 2009, Exaos Lee, Forum, Why should we use "INLINE" here?
| |
03 Sep 2009, Stefan Ritt, Forum, Why should we use "INLINE" here?
|
|
|
Message ID: 626
Entry time: 03 Sep 2009
In reply to: 623
|
| Author: |
Stefan Ritt |
| Topic: |
Forum |
| Subject: |
Why should we use "INLINE" here? |
|
|
| Exaos Lee wrote: | There are many "INLINE" definitions in "include/*.h". Both GNU C and C99 permit using inline functions. I still wonder why.  |
The INLINE statements are a relict from times where a subroutine call was in the order of a few microseconds. This was when you probably were pretty young, and we had MS DOS PCs running at 66 MHz and 640 kB (not MB!) of memory. At that time, inlining the CAMAC functions gave a 50% speedup, believe it or not! I guess now this is completely obsolete, plus modern compilers can do inlining automatically if they realize that there is a benefit. So we should remove all the inline business. We plan some major rework later in September, so I will include that on the todo list there.
- Stefan |