On 12/15/09, Kurt Harriman <harriman@acm.org> wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 4:05 AM, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > Unless it is some popular compiler (as "in actual use") it is
> > premature complexity. Please remove that.
>
> Microsoft's compilers are in actual use, and some might even
> say they are popular. For example, James Mansion posted to
> this effect on 2 December.
Erm, AFAIK he simply misunderstood my "(gcc)" comment.
Do you have actual proof that MSVC launches warnings on unused
"static inline" functions? Not "static", but "static inline".
If yes, indeed we need to fix it. MSVC is broken then, but it does
not matter as we need to work well on it. We can fix it with either
force-inline, or equivalent with gcc's __attribute__((unused)).
If no, then we don't need to fix it. Adding complexity based on
some email miscommunication seems wrong to me...
--
marko
