On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 13:53:54 -0800 Nathaniel Smith firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 8:52 AM Stefan Behnel email@example.com wrote:
Gregory P. Smith schrieb am 15.11.18 um 01:03:
From my point of view: A static inline function is a much nicer modern code style than a C preprocessor macro.
It's also slower to compile, given that function inlining happens at a much later point in the compiler pipeline than macro expansion. The C compiler won't even get to see macros in fact, whereas whether to inline a function or not is a dedicated decision during the optimisation phase based on metrics collected in earlier stages. For something as ubiquitous as Py_INCREF/Py_DECREF, it might even be visible in the compilation times.
Have you measured this? I had the opposite intuition, that macros on average will be slower to compile because they increase the amount of code that the frontend has to process. But I've never checked...
It will certainly depend on how much code the macro expands to. Py_INCREF is an extremely simple macro, so expanding everywhere doesn't sound like a problem.
On the other hand, modern "macros" that are C++ templates can inline vast amounts of code at the call site, and that's a common cause of slow C++ compiles.