Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "92efa108".
2013 Feb 04
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Coding standards: don't use ``inline`` when defining a function in a class definition
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This came up on IRC in context of r173842, and it was suggested to
> codify this unspoken rule.
>
> Current practice is not to use 'inline' in:
>
> class Foo {
> public:
> inline void bar() {
> // ...
> }
> };
Ping.
This patch is
2013 Feb 04
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Coding standards: don't use ``inline`` when defining a function in a class definition
...rule we
> already follow.
Sure. LGTM.
Note that I don't have any real opinion about this other than that it's one
less needless keyword. =]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130204/92efa108/attachment.html>
2013 Jan 29
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Coding standards: don't use ``inline`` when defining a function in a class definition
Hello,
This came up on IRC in context of r173842, and it was suggested to
codify this unspoken rule.
Current practice is not to use 'inline' in:
class Foo {
public:
inline void bar() {
// ...
}
};
Dmitri
--
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>*/