[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: inline function expansion
From: |
Philip Kaludercic |
Subject: |
Re: inline function expansion |
Date: |
Sun, 07 May 2023 19:48:14 +0000 |
Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a function that will let us see the result of inline function
> expansion at the source level? I see "byte-compile-preprocess" and
> "byte-compile-inline-expand" as possibilities, but neither has a
> docstring.
What I usually do is just to invoke M-x disassemble, but you won't be
viewing the code transformation on source-level. I am not sure if
inlineing happens on a s-expression level like with macros, or if the
byte-code optimiser just inlines the definition instead of generating
code funcall.
> If I use define-inline, I would like to be able to verify that the
> result is what I expect, or vice versa, that I understand what the
> result will be well enough to have the correct expectation.
Isn't the idea of inlining that the behaviour/effect of invoking a
function shouldn't change, just that the resulting code might be more
efficient?
> Thanks,
> Lynn
- inline function expansion, Lynn Winebarger, 2023/05/07
- Re: inline function expansion, Basile Starynkevitch, 2023/05/07
- Re: inline function expansion,
Philip Kaludercic <=
- Re: inline function expansion, Lynn Winebarger, 2023/05/07
- Re: inline function expansion, Lynn Winebarger, 2023/05/11
- Re: inline function expansion, Emanuel Berg, 2023/05/13
- Re: inline function expansion, Lynn Winebarger, 2023/05/18
- Re: inline function expansion, Stefan Monnier, 2023/05/19
- Re: inline function expansion, Lynn Winebarger, 2023/05/20
- Re: inline function expansion, Stefan Monnier, 2023/05/20