Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID: <3589BAAB.26E031BF@cartsys.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:11:07 -0700
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Elliott Oti <oti AT phys DOT uu DOT nl>
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: C vs C++
References: <199806152230390650 DOT 001F6C6E AT pogwizd DOT tcs DOT uni DOT wroc DOT pl> <Pine DOT OSF DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 980617120739 DOT 17286B-100000 AT ruunat DOT phys DOT uu DOT nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Elliott Oti wrote:

> For class methods declared and defined in a header file gcc will (usually)
> optimize such an expression, so that it winds up being as efficient as C
> code generated with the usual ADD_MATRIX(a,b) macro approach. 

Note that with GCC, you can do inline functions in vanilla C as well. 
They're safer, more convenient, and usually as fast as macros.

-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com