apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bert Huijben" <b...@qqmail.nl>
Subject RE: Optimization, modern C and APR 2.0 onwards
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:53:01 GMT


As long as we don’t require complete/100% C99 at this time.


Microsoft only intends to implement the C99 subset that is also part of the recent C++ specs
(or just easy to do) in Visual Studio, and in most cases it already does in the most recent


But talking specifically about inline… I think it had that in VC 6.0/1998. 


Personally my interest stops below the VS 2008 version. I won’t object on breaking support
for older versions.

(This is +- what we support with Subversion. VS2005 should still work as there are not many
differences with 2008, but nobody in the project tested anything older in a long time.)




From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net] 
Sent: vrijdag 20 november 2015 19:32
To: APR Developer List <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Optimization, modern C and APR 2.0 onwards


I'm wondering how the group would react to refactoring some of APR 2.0

to either offer inline code for many of our heavily consumed functions,

or offering inline + fn implementations alongside one another?


Would it still be necessary in this day and age to support C compilers

that do not support inline at all, e.g. hide the inline declarations based

on some macro switch leaving only the function stub?


We can obviously debate the merits of which functions are most

prime for optimization, including how mature each is (due to the

fact that the user will be 'stuck' with the implementation until they

recompile their own code against a new release of apr in the event

of a bug or security fix).





View raw message