On Oct 6, 2004, at 11:34 PM, piclist@xargs.com wrote:

>
>> and define functions?  It's a substantial accomplishment, IMO...
>
> The functions were "inline", so they're probably interpreted more like
> C macros than functions.

Agreed, if xcsb processes "inline" functions the same as C macros,
it's less impressive.  I don't know if that's the case...

>
>  But something like this:
>
> #define TEST_BIT(port, bit)     (((port) & (1 << ((bit) & 7))) != 0)

What does your C compiler do if you use a C inline function instead
of a macro?

I guess, one of the (main?) impressive things is getting the info
that the expressions are constants across that function call boundry.
If inline functions are just macro-like, that's not such a big deal.
If they're really inline functions (and my compiler internals
expertise isn't enough to list all the ways that's different), then
it IS a pretty big deal...

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist