cxplat: use of inline functions and macros
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 105
- Forks
- 34
- Avg merge
- 3d 39m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 5
Description
In #89, comments ehre:
Nick: General question though: Can/should we move stuff to be header only (via macros or possibly inline functions) instead of functions defined in separate files? Ideally the linker should do a good job of eliminating overhead, but it doesn't always do it perfect.
Dave: The downside of macros/inlines is that if they're non-trivial and used a lot, then they can increase the footprint and memory requirements. So I would say: yes for trivial functions, no for complex functions. Can do a pass in a separate PR.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the discussion in issue #89 and the cxplat functions currently defined in separate files. Identify which functions are trivial candidates for inline or macro treatment, and consider footprint and memory impact before deciding what to move; done means the pass has a documented, reviewed outcome.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- operating-systems
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100