[MUD-Dev] Naming and Directories?

Jo Dillon emily at thelonious.new.ox.ac.uk
Thu Mar 18 10:00:29 CET 1999

Chris Gray (cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA) spake thusly:
> [Jo Dillon:]
>  >  If it's that optimised might it not be defined in the header file,
>  >giving the compiler the source? I mean, if I was writing a highly
>  >optimised strcmp I wouldn't overlook the overhead involved in a function
>  >call...
> 'FD_SET', etc. Keep in mind that the practice of having short accessor
> routines be 'inline' is a C++ thing, and doesn't port to ANSI C (I think -
> I know gcc supports 'inline', but is it part of ANSI C?)

  Well, I was thinking a modern optimising C compiler might be smart enough
to inline without being told to do so with very short functions. This
might have changed since you last looked at the appropriate headers,
since after all compilers are getting more clever every year ;)
Also, in the specific case of includes designed to be used with gcc
(glibc?) 'inline' might well be used - after all C++ as well as C compilers
use the libc, and would benefit a lot from this sort of optimisation.


MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the mud-dev-archive mailing list