Am 21.05.25 um 14:28 schrieb Joaquin M López Muñoz via Boost:
El 21/05/2025 a las 13:54, Ivan Matek via Boost escribió:
Warning is not false positive.
The warning does not indicate a problem in the code, and whether it is more or less readable is very subjective. It seems like a pretty pointless warning to me. Even if you care about such things, you really shouldn't be applying it to any code other than your own.
Well as I said it is not a problem since inline is just redundant.
It is redundant from the point of view of the language standard, but compilers take inline as a hint to favor inlining in optimization modes. Consider for instance:
https://godbolt.org/z/dnfhYvnMK
You can see that X::foo is inlined while X::bar is not. This is the original reason why those member functions in candidate Boost.Bloom are added the "inline" bit, namely, to invite compilers to inline --though, admittedly, for very short functions this is hardly going to make a difference.
I think the warning is mostly correct. From the Docs:
|inline| is redundant since constexpr functions are implicitly inlined |inline| is redundant since member functions defined entirely inside a class/struct/union definition are implicitly inlined.
In your godbolt example you have *static* member functions. This seems to be a difference. See https://godbolt.org/z/h76z4GfzP for your example with static removed I'm wondering if this is a compiler/optimizer issue that should be fixed. So I'd say at least "inline constexpr" can be simplified, which is used in the source. However you are right in that clang-tidy also warns for "static inline" where it does matter: https://godbolt.org/z/WqK3oK93Y It seems to indeed take it as a hint as the function will be inlined when you make it smaller. Just my 2c, Alex