Re: [boost] [gil] GIL_FORCEINLINE replaced with BOOST_FORCEINLINE?

Subject: Re: [boost] [gil] GIL_FORCEINLINE replaced with BOOST_FORCEINLINE?
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-12 17:55:06

On 12 March 2013 20:58, Christian Henning <chhenning_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I was actually hoping to receive answer if it is a good idea at all.
>> Perhaps my understanding of purpose of BOOST_FORCEINLINE is biased.
>>
>
> I don't see much difference in both versions. I'll adapt
> BOOST_FORCEINLINE so I don't have to worry about gil's version. ;-)

Works for me, thank you.

It will me help to silent Visual C++ warning C4714:
function 'function' marked as __forceinline not inlined

Best regards,
--
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net