Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 15:11:45 +0000
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <vq4grh$1bvqe$1@dont-email.me>
References: <5mqdnZuGq4lgwm_7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vd8eg7$15v1j$2@dont-email.me>
 <cxicnVzg_cn_eGX7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vdapbn$1kp35$5@dont-email.me> <lltpunF4fseU2@mid.individual.net>
 <1smdnSjX3YoxgWf7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <llv30aFa6uvU3@mid.individual.net> <vde4b8$268qv$22@dont-email.me>
 <1396870532.749421730.052473.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
 <wrapper-20241001111737@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <vpl5uk$hhk$3@reader1.panix.com>
 <c4acndn4jJXKwCP6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <1214951717.762291306.657281.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
 <m2a04pF90mqU2@mid.individual.net> <vppj5n$33b82$4@dont-email.me>
 <m2clmbFl430U10@mid.individual.net> <m2dp4gF577vU2@mid.individual.net>
 <TeucnZgT9qpy_F_6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <vpujqm$5g9r$2@dont-email.me>
 <V82cnbblIbFrdF76nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> <vq190b$n7hp$1@dont-email.me>
 <wwvbjujmtxp.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:11:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="67a05bccb290df4faa5d65d52a7787da";
	logging-data="1441614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DTz1eCdiSIylnRJWYrX9Cp9JL9kKJ5dI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hxD0DZ9RtaWhs7g3n1pt1lW0mn8=
In-Reply-To: <wwvbjujmtxp.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2975

On 02/03/2025 13:41, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> And in fact these days with inline functions
>>
>> if(x>y)
>>        fubar(x,y,z);
>> else
>>        rabuf (z,y,x);
>>
>> Is even shorter and allows the program flow rather than the
>> implementation to be seen clearly.
>>
>> I wonder if compilers actually inline functions that are only called
>> once.
> 
> Modern compilers will often inline functions that aren’t declared
> inline, yes; I don’t know if “only called once” is a consideration. It’s
> not implausible (possibly in a more general form, e.g. “will inlining
> all calls take more or less space overall?”)
> 
My complier writing friend suggested that if the function were declared 
static, and the function only called once. it certainly could be 
inlined, but he was not sure at what optimisation level of gcc it would be.


-- 
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain