apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Optimization, modern C and APR 2.0 onwards
Date Fri, 20 Nov 2015 19:07:05 GMT
On 20.11.2015 19:53, Bert Huijben wrote:
> +1
>
>  
>
> 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 version.
>
>  
>
> But talking specifically about inline… I think it had that in VC 6.0/1998.

Microsoft C/C++ 6.0 as a matter of fact ... on DOS, 10 years earlier, a
couple years before Visual C++ 1.0. :)

> 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.)
>
>  
>
>                 Bert
>
>  
>
> 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).
>
>  
>
> Thoughts?
>
>  
>
> Bill
>
>


Mime
View raw message