4 ms·

Wouldn't that become a separate function per translation unit?

• byuu 12y ago
  I want to say that GCC will do the same thing with the inline trick. It has the option to inline the function (where there won't be any actual functions in the resulting binary), or declare it as a unit-unique function (where the actual function will be repeated in the binary, one for each object that includes our header and uses the function), or recognize it's the same function in each unit and merge it back to just one function for the entire binary (which seems even more likely to happen with LTO.) Theoretically, the same thing should happen here. The only difference is you don't have to hint that you want the function inlined (and maybe you really don't), but you can still mark the function inline (or always_inline) if you want to ask GCC to please do that, and it doesn't ignore you. However, I haven't actually analyzed the resulting binaries comparing the two approaches, so I can't say for sure if GCC can optimize the multiple functions to one in the former case (inline) but not the latter case (anonymous namespace). It would seem like an oversight if that were true.