QT + mingw and 'inline' functions?

[agarny]

Personally, I don't bother with them any more. As you said, compilers are clever enough nowadays, so... I leave it to them to decide what is best. Also, inlining can, in some cases, make things worse, so...

[tonnot]

But, if you see at QT code, you can see inline functions....

[agarny]

But, if you see at QT code, you can see inline functions....

Yes and so what? It's their call and I gave you mine. Now, one might argue that their call is probably better than mine, and that is completely fine with me. Still, at the end of the day, it's your decision. So, just gather as much information as possible and decide for yourself, e.g.

• http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...functions.html
• http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/inline.html

[high_flyer]

You might want to read this:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...functions.html

[tonnot]

Thank you very much

[wysota]

But, if you see at QT code, you can see inline functions....

Qt is available for more than one compiler and not all compilers are equally smart. Besides, forcing a function to be inlined has its merits (e.g. you don't need to have the .cpp file for a class).