Re: [Bloom] Some questions

From: Joaquin M López Muñoz (joaquinlopezmunoz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-05-21 12:28:02

El 21/05/2025 a las 13:54, Ivan Matek via Boost escribió:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 2:09 AM Steven Watanabe via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> AMDG
>>
>> On 5/19/25 1:01 PM, Ivan Matek via Boost wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:27 PM Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost <
>>> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It is IDE clang-tidy warning, not sure compiler matters.
>>>>>
>> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability/redundant-inline-specifier.html
>>>>
>>>> Could you please check if adding this comment to the offending lines
>>>>
>>>> /* NOLINT(readability-redundant-inline-specifier) */
>>>>
>>>> makes the warnings go away? If so, I'd happily accept a PR with
>>>> that change. Thank you!
>>>>
>>> I am now a bit confused :)
>>> I believe warning is correct, why not change the code instead of
>>> suppressing the warning?
>> What do you mean by correct?
> Warning is not false positive.
>
>
>> The warning does not indicate a problem in
>> the code, and whether it is more or less readable is very subjective. It
>> seems like a pretty pointless warning to me. Even if you care about such
>> things, you really shouldn't be applying it to any code other than your
>> own.
>>
> Well as I said it is not a problem since inline is just redundant.

It is redundant from the point of view of the language standard, but
compilers take inline as a hint to favor inlining in optimization modes.
Consider for instance:

https://godbolt.org/z/dnfhYvnMK

You can see that X::foo is inlined while X::bar is not. This is the original
reason why those member functions in candidate Boost.Bloom are added
the "inline" bit, namely, to invite compilers to inline --though, 
admittedly,
for very short functions this is hardly going to make a difference.

Joaquin M Lopez Munoz