> Wait, no. Didn't we get to the point that we figured out that the
> primary issue is the reversal of the order of what is checked is the
> primary problem, rather than the macro/inline piece?
Reversal of the order makes a small or no difference. The
macro/inline change causes the real slowdown at least on GCC.
> Nor do I see how it's going to be ok to just rename the function in a
> stable branch.
I'll post another version to keep them around.
