[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SCM_CALL_N
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: SCM_CALL_N |
Date: |
25 Jun 2001 17:01:17 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
> Yes, I like this, too.
>
> However, should we use macros for this or functions? Functions would
> make it easier to maintain backward compatibility and would stand out
> as something special in the code. But are we concerned about binary
> compatibility yet? Hmm, I don't think so.
I tend to think that unless there's a *really* good reason for making
something a macro, we shouldn't. So if performance isn't critical
here (i.e. making it a function doesn't cost a lot relative to the
overhead already involved), and if there's no other reason to make
these macros, we shouldn't.
Also, if 99% of the compilers we're going to be using support inline
in a sane manner, that would be preferable to macros for many cases as
well IMO.
--
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, (continued)
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/22
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Dale P. Smith, 2001/06/22
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Rob Browning, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N,
Rob Browning <=
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/26
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/26
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/26
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Rob Browning, 2001/06/26
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Lars J. Aas, 2001/06/26
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/26
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/26
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/06/26