'inline' during declaration & definition

[qazmlp]

// test.h
class test
{
public :
inline void check() ;

} ;

// test.C
inline void test::check() // Is 'inline' optional here?
{

}


Do I need to use 'inline' keyword again in the prototype in .C file
when it is already given as 'inline' in the .h file?.

 

[ES Kim]

// test.h
class test
{
public :
inline void check() ;

} ;

// test.C
inline void test::check() // Is 'inline' optional here?
{

}


Do I need to use 'inline' keyword again in the prototype in .C file
when it is already given as 'inline' in the .h file?.

No, you don't have to, but definition of the inline function should be
known in the source file where it is called so that the function body
can be inserted in hard-coded way. A common practice is to define
the function in class definition block of header file. That way, all the
sources including the header will know the definition of the function.
It's just "in a line" anyway.

class test
{
public:
void check() { /* do something */ } // inline keyword is not necessary
};

 

[Greg Comeau]

// test.h
class test
{
public :
inline void check() ;

} ;

// test.C
inline void test::check() // Is 'inline' optional here?
{

}


Do I need to use 'inline' keyword again in the prototype in .C file
when it is already given as 'inline' in the .h file?.

It's up to you.

But:
Normally you wouldn't use inline in the prototype in a .C file
because normally your inline would be in a .h file.

Also, adding inline to a definition to a function that is only
provided in a non-.h file and is expect to be used by other
non-.h source files usually will not obtain inline'ability,
since many compilers do not yet support cross translation
inlining. IOWs, this:

// file1.cpp

// ....
void inline foo()
{
...
}



//file2.cpp

//...
void bar()
{
foo();
}

will usually not consider foo as a candidate for inlineing.