5:55:25beachBike: You can almost always avoid the test for an &optional argument if you write one or two functions without &optional, and have the compiler macro expand to a call to one of them.
5:56:18beachThen, even if inlining works only for functions without &optional, you can benefit from inlining anyway.
11:25:15Bikebeach: hm, i see. don't think i've seen people do that before.
13:54:58beach... by declaring it notinline before use.
13:57:55Bikesure? i mean, the function it's being inlined into is also part of the library
13:58:12Bikeit seems pretty reasonable inline to me, but it's not critical to do so either
13:59:18beachI suggested it because you hinted that inlining created a big LLVM code. If it works fine, then forget what I said. I must have misunderstood something.
13:59:47BikeOh, if you mean when I was talking about dot files yesterday that was just because it's a big lisp function
13:59:58Bikebabel has some macros that expand enormously
14:00:34beachI see. I seem to remember that it had to do with inlining functions with &optional parameters. I must be misremembering.