Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "r173842".
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);}}} /*D...
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 not changing anything, it just documents the rule w...
2013 Feb 04
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Coding standards: don't use ``inline`` when defining a function in a class definition
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
&g...