Re: [hub] Post-review version ready
Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
El 28/05/2026 a las 3:16, Matthew Bentley escribió: > > [...] > I'll add a note re: forced inlining. In the past I enabled this for > some things like operator++, but found it pessimised. The compiler > seems to be much better at this that we are. However, you'd need to > measure before-and-after stats for your own case - not against my > container (as forced inlining will definitely preferentially inline > some of your code), but against your own pre-removal readings. > Removing my container from that benchmark would probably help to get > accurate results in this particular case. > I've checked locally in the past with and without forced inlining: GCC and Clang do not seem to be really affected, but MSVC benefits a bit. We observed a similar behavior when working with boost::unordered_flat_map, my impression is that MSVC has a very low inlining budget. I may revisit this again anyway, never hurts to double check. Thank you, Joaquín M López Muñoz _______________________________________________ Boost mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/ Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/VP6JT3LSYKK7FSPPXZZUI3LF5YTRMQ2Y/