Re: New ARI warning Fri Apr 20 01:58:17 UTC 2012

Joel Brobecker
2012-04-20T08:54:09Z

> IIUC, these alarms are moved from vec.[ch] to common/vec.[ch], so they
> can be ignored. Let me know if I am wrong.

Generally speaking, if there are only a few, I personally think
that we should at least try to address them, especially if it is
easy. But that shouldn't necessarily have to be addressed by
the person who moved the code.

In this particular case, I kind of agree with the warning, but
at the same time, I don't really see why we should necessarily
ban the use of the "inline" keyword. I'm actually considering
the idea of getting rid of this ARI rule.

Any opinion on this topic? My tendency is to discourage the use
of that keyword unless it has been shown to make a difference.
But it's only based on what more experienced engineers have
told me, and I never really had the need to verify it.

--
Joel