From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27516 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2013 13:33:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27507 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2013 13:33:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ie0-f180.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-ie0-f180.google.com) (209.85.223.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:33:14 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e14so11790346iej.25 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 05:33:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.62.3 with SMTP id u3mr8208452igr.49.1383571986734; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 05:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.136.78 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 05:33:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: virtual inline vs inline From: Norbert Dajka To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 Hello, I would like to know, if there is any difference (in allocated memory space) between defining a function inline in the class declaration (with the inline word), and defining a function inline explicit after the class declaration. In addition, does anybody know, why a previously only inline declared function takes up more memory space, if it's declared virtual inline (even if the classes to which the declaring class of the function is a parent class doesn't have their own implementation)? Best regards, Norbert