[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11935: [TRUNCATED MESSAGE 2746 87596] bug#11935: XINT etc. should be
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
bug#11935: [TRUNCATED MESSAGE 2746 87596] bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions |
Date: |
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:20:14 -0400 |
In the old days Emacs had to use macros for this sort of
thing, because C compilers generated significantly faster
code with macros. Modern C compilers, however, don't have
this problem.
That could be true if the functions are inlined.
How does this change affect performance with -O0?
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/13
- bug#11935: [TRUNCATED MESSAGE 2746 87596] bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions,
Richard Stallman <=
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Richard Stallman, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/23