Avoiding the cost of a function call is only half the story.
do:
- use
inline
instead of#define
- very small functions are good candidates for
inline
: faster code and smaller executables (more chances to stay in the code cache) - the function is small and called very often
don’t:
- large functions: leads to larger executables, which significantly impairs performance regardless of the faster execution that results from the calling overhead
- inline functions that are I/O bound
- the function is seldom used
- constructors and destructors: even when empty, the compiler generates code for them
- breaking binary compatibility when developing libraries:
- inline an existing function
- change an inline function or make an inline function non-inline: prior version of the library call the old implementation
when developing a library, in order to make a class extensible in the future you should:
- add non-inline virtual destructor even if the body is empty
- make all constructors non-inline
- write non-inline implementations of the copy constructor and assignment operator unless the class cannot be copied by value
Remember that the inline
keyword is a hint to the compiler: the compiler may decide not to inline a function and it can decide to inline functions that were not marked inline
in the first place. I generally avoid marking function inline
(apart maybe when writing very very small functions).
About performance, the wise approach is (as always) to profile the application, then eventually inline
a set of functions representing a bottleneck.
References:
- To Inline or Not To Inline
- [9] Inline functions
- Policies/Binary Compatibility Issues With C++
- GotW #33: Inline
- Inline Redux
- Effective C++ – Item 33: Use inlining judiciously
EDIT: Bjarne Stroustrup, The C++ Programming Language:
A function can be defined to be
inline
. For example:
inline int fac(int n)
{
return (n < 2) ? 1 : n * fac(n-1);
}
The
inline
specifier is a hint to the compiler that it should attempt to generate code for a call offac()
inline rather than laying down the code for the function once and then calling through the usual function call mechanism. A clever compiler can generate the constant720
for a callfac(6)
. The possibility of mutually recursive inline functions, inline functions that recurse or not depending on input, etc., makes it impossible to guarantee that every call of aninline
function is actually inlined. The degree of cleverness of a compiler cannot be legislated, so one compiler might generate720
, another6 * fac(5)
, and yet another an un-inlined callfac(6)
.To make inlining possible in the absence of unusually clever compilation and linking facilities, the definition–and not just the declaration–of an inline function must be in scope (§9.2). An
inline
especifier does not affect the semantics of a function. In particular, an inline function still has a unique address and so hasstatic
variables (§7.1.2) of an inline function.
EDIT2: ISO-IEC 14882-1998, 7.1.2 Function specifiers
A function declaration (8.3.5, 9.3, 11.4) with an
inline
specifier declares an inline function. The inline specifier indicates to the implementation that inline substitution of the function body at the point of call is to be preferred to the usual function call mechanism. An implementation is not required to perform this inline substitution at the point of call; however, even if this inline substitution is omitted, the other rules for inline functions defined by 7.1.2 shall still be respected.