On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Arthur Schwarz <aschwarz1309@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I included the disassembled code in the original problem description. The entire > coding ensemble is some 10,000SLOC. I don't know what effort or time it would be > to construct test case to illustrate this one point. I suspect that it may take > several days, or then again, maybe several hours. Isn't the generated code > sufficient? To be honest, the generated code alone tells me nothing. You are basically asking whether the generated code is a correct compilation of the source code. It's impossible to answer that question without seeing the source code. You provided a verbal description of the source code, but my sad experience is that 99% of the time somebody believes that code has been miscompiled, it is because they have misunderstood their source code or the language. So while you could certainly be in the 1% with a real bug, a verbal description is insufficient to determine that. > I will try to generate a specific test case, but it will probably take several > days to get "around to it". is this OK? It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. You did ask some specific questions in the original message: > It looks as if in some cases using an implicit inline statement (a body and > method definition in the header file) breaks the compiler. This is not a known bug. If it were known, it would be extremely serious, and it would be fixed. > if this is accurate > are there any guidelines? There are no guidelines because the bug is not known. > Will explicit inlines work correctly (inline <type> > method();) or can inlines not be used? Both implicit and explicit inlines can be used and people use them all the time. Ian
