3 ms·

I don't see how can you have functions inlined while being able to replace them at runtime. Also, intrinsic functions might or might not get replaced with inli

• haneefmubarak 12y ago
  That's a good point. I guess for those sensitive areas, you would just have to use the functions as they are. However, as I mentioned, I don't include `static inline` functions, so you will have to call those the normal way and therefore will get all of the normal benefits such as inlining. As for intrinsic functions, I'm familiar with compiler intrinsics, so if you mean those, I don't include those either (well, I can't to be honest, since they don't have symbols in a library). So those will still act as they always have. Meanwhile, for functions like memset() and such, my experimentation shows (at least on GCC) that it only replaces the call with assembly for smaller values, which I'm guessing are meant for use in tight loops. In places like that, it may be valuable to just use the bare function name.