除非您正在编写一个库或有特殊的原因，否则您可以忘记内联，而是使用链接时间优化。它消除了函数定义必须在头文件中才能考虑跨编译单元进行内联的要求，这正是内联所允许的。

(但请参阅为什么不使用链接时间优化?)

天啊，我最讨厌的事之一。

内联更像静态或extern，而不是告诉编译器内联函数的指令。Extern, static, inline是链接指令，几乎只由链接器使用，而不是编译器。

据说，内联提示编译器，你认为函数应该内联。这在1998年可能是正确的，但十年后，编译器不需要这样的提示。更不用说，当涉及到优化代码时，人类通常是错误的，所以大多数编译器会忽略“提示”。

static - the variable/function name cannot be used in other translation units. Linker needs to make sure it doesn't accidentally use a statically defined variable/function from another translation unit. extern - use this variable/function name in this translation unit but don't complain if it isn't defined. The linker will sort it out and make sure all the code that tried to use some extern symbol has its address. inline - this function will be defined in multiple translation units, don't worry about it. The linker needs to make sure all translation units use a single instance of the variable/function.

注意:通常，将模板声明为内联是没有意义的，因为它们已经具有内联的链接语义。但是，模板的显式专门化和实例化需要内联使用。

具体问题解答:

When should I write the keyword 'inline' for a function/method in C++? Only when you want the function to be defined in a header. More exactly only when the function's definition can show up in multiple translation units. It's a good idea to define small (as in one liner) functions in the header file as it gives the compiler more information to work with while optimizing your code. It also increases compilation time. When should I not write the keyword 'inline' for a function/method in C++? Don't add inline just because you think your code will run faster if the compiler inlines it. When will the compiler not know when to make a function/method 'inline'? Generally, the compiler will be able to do this better than you. However, the compiler doesn't have the option to inline code if it doesn't have the function definition. In maximally optimized code usually all private methods are inlined whether you ask for it or not. As an aside to prevent inlining in GCC, use __attribute__(( noinline )), and in Visual Studio, use __declspec(noinline). Does it matter if an application is multithreaded when one writes 'inline' for a function/method? Multithreading doesn't affect inlining in any way.

我想用一个令人信服的例子来解释这篇文章中所有的伟大答案，以消除任何剩余的误解。

给定两个源文件，例如:

inline111.cpp: # include < iostream > 空白栏(); Inline fun() { 返回111; ｝ Int main() { std:: cout < <“inline111:有趣 () = " << 有趣的 () << ", & 有趣= " < < (void *)与娱乐; 酒吧(); ｝ inline222.cpp: # include < iostream > Inline fun() { 返回222; ｝ 空格条(){ std:: cout < <“inline222:有趣 () = " << 有趣的 () << ", & 有趣= " < < (void *)与娱乐; ｝

Case A: Compile: g++ -std=c++11 inline111.cpp inline222.cpp Output: inline111: fun() = 111, &fun = 0x4029a0 inline222: fun() = 111, &fun = 0x4029a0 Discussion: Even thou you ought to have identical definitions of your inline functions, C++ compiler does not flag it if that is not the case (actually, due to separate compilation it has no ways to check it). It is your own duty to ensure this! Linker does not complain about One Definition Rule, as fun() is declared as inline. However, because inline111.cpp is the first translation unit (which actually calls fun()) processed by compiler, the compiler instantiates fun() upon its first call-encounter in inline111.cpp. If compiler decides not to expand fun() upon its call from anywhere else in your program (e.g. from inline222.cpp), the call to fun() will always be linked to its instance produced from inline111.cpp (the call to fun() inside inline222.cpp may also produce an instance in that translation unit, but it will remain unlinked). Indeed, that is evident from the identical &fun = 0x4029a0 print-outs. Finally, despite the inline suggestion to the compiler to actually expand the one-liner fun(), it ignores your suggestion completely, which is clear because fun() = 111 in both of the lines.

Case B: Compile (notice reverse order): g++ -std=c++11 inline222.cpp inline111.cpp Output: inline111: fun() = 222, &fun = 0x402980 inline222: fun() = 222, &fun = 0x402980 Discussion: This case asserts what have been discussed in Case A. Notice an important point, that if you comment out the actual call to fun() in inline222.cpp (e.g. comment out cout-statement in inline222.cpp completely) then, despite the compilation order of your translation units, fun() will be instantiated upon it's first call encounter in inline111.cpp, resulting in print-out for Case B as inline111: fun() = 111, &fun = 0x402980.

Case C: Compile (notice -O2): g++ -std=c++11 -O2 inline222.cpp inline111.cpp or g++ -std=c++11 -O2 inline111.cpp inline222.cpp Output: inline111: fun() = 111, &fun = 0x402900 inline222: fun() = 222, &fun = 0x402900 Discussion: As is described here, -O2 optimization encourages compiler to actually expand the functions that can be inlined (Notice also that -fno-inline is default without optimization options). As is evident from the outprint here, the fun() has actually been inline expanded (according to its definition in that particular translation unit), resulting in two different fun() print-outs. Despite this, there is still only one globally linked instance of fun() (as required by the standard), as is evident from identical &fun print-out.

c++内联与C内联完全不同。

#include <iostream>
extern inline int i[];
int i [5];
struct c {
  int function (){return 1;} // implicitly inline
  static inline int j = 3; // explicitly inline
  static int k; // without inline, a static member has to be defined out of line
  static int f (){return 1;} // but a static method does not // implicitly inline
};

extern inline int b;
int b=3;
int c::k = 3; // when a static member is defined out of line it cannot have a static
              // specifier and if it doesn't have an `inline` specifier in the
              // declaration or on the definition then it is not inline and always
              // emits a strong global symbol in the translation unit

int main() {
  c j;
  std::cout << i;
}

inline on its own affects the compiler, assembler and the linker. It is a directive to the compiler saying only emit a symbol for this function/data if it's used in the translation unit, and if it is, then like class methods, tell the assembler to store them in the section .section .text.c::function(),"axG",@progbits,c::function(),comdat or .section .bss.i,"awG",@nobits,i,comdat for unitialised data or .section .data.b,"awG",@progbits,b,comdat for initialised data. Template instantiations also go in their own comdat groups.

This follows .section name, "flags"MG, @type, entsize, GroupName[, linkage]. For instance, the section name is .text.c::function(). axG means the section is allocatable, executable and in a group i.e. a group name will be specified (and there is no M flag so no entsize will be specified); @progbits means the section contains data and isn't blank; c::function() is the group name and the group has comdat linkage meaning that in all object files, all sections encountered with this group name tagged with comdat will be removed from the final executable except for 1 i.e. the compiler makes sure that there is only one definition in the translation unit and then tells the assembler to put it in its own group in the object file (1 section in 1 group) and then the linker will make sure that if any object files have a group with the same name, then only include one in the final .exe. The difference between inline and not using inline is now visible to the assembler and as a result the linker, because it's not stored in the regular .data or .text etc by the assembler due to their directives. Only inline symbols with external linkage are given external comdat linkage like this -- static linkage (local) symbols do not need to go in comdat groups.

inline on a non-static method declaration in a class makes the method inline if it is defined out-of-line, this will prevent the method being emitted in the translation unit if it is not referenced in the translation unit. The same effect is achieved by putting inline on the out-of-line definition. When a method is defined out-of-line without an inline specifier and the declaration in the class is not inline then it will emit a symbol for the method in the translation unit at all times because it will have external linkage rather than external comdat linkage. If the method is defined in the class then it is implicitly inline, which gives it external comdat linkage rather than external linkage.

static inline on a member in a class (as opposed to method) makes it a static member (which does not refer to its linkage -- it has the linkage of its class which may be extern). static inline also allows static members of the class to be defined inside the class instead of needing to be declared in the class and then defined out-of-line (without static in the definition, which wasn't allowed without -fpermissive). *static inline* also makes the members inline and not static inline -- inline means that the definition is only emitted if it is referenced in the translation unit. Previously you had to specify inline on the out-of-line definition to make the member inline.

由于静态方法可以在类中定义，因此静态内联对类中定义的静态方法没有影响，类中定义的静态方法始终具有外部链接，是静态方法并且是内联的。如果它被定义在行外，那么inline必须被用来使它成为内联(即给予外部comdat链接而不仅仅是外部链接)，static仍然不能被使用。

static inline at file scope only affects the compiler. It means to the compiler: only emit a symbol for this function/data if it's used in the translation unit and do so as a regular static symbol (store in.text /.data without .globl directive). To the assembler there is now no difference between static and static inline. Like the other forms of inline, it cannot be used on a class, which is a type, but can be used on an object of the type of that class. This form of static inline also cannot be used on members or methods of a function, where it will always be treated inline as the static means something else in a class (it means that the class is acting as a scope rather than it being a member of or method to be used on an object).

Extern inline是一个声明，意味着如果它被引用或抛出编译器错误，则必须在翻译单元中定义此符号;如果定义了它，那么将它视为常规的内联，对于汇编器和链接器，extern内联和内联之间没有区别，因此这只是一个编译器保护。

extern inline int i[];
extern int i[]; //allowed repetition of declaration with incomplete type, inherits inline property
extern int i[5]; //declaration now has complete type
extern int i[5]; //allowed redeclaration if it is the same complete type or has not yet been completed
extern int i[6]; //error, redeclaration with different complete type
int i[5]; //definition, must have complete type and same complete type as the declaration if there is a declaration with a complete type

如果没有错误行，上面的全部内容将折叠为inline int i[5]。显然，如果你做了extern inline int i[] = {5};然后，由于通过赋值显式定义，extern将被忽略。

I think the reason that static is not allowed on a static out-of-line definition without -fpermissive is because it implies that the static refers to static linkage, because it's not immediately obvious to the programmer that it is a member of a class or whether that class has , where the static means something different. -fpermissive ignores the static specifier on the out-of-line definition and it means nothing. In the case of a simple integer, k can't be defined out of a namespace, if c were a namespace, but if k were a function, then there would be no way of visibly telling from the line of code whether it is an out of line definition of a function in a namespace with static linkage, or an out-of-line definition of a static member with external linkage, and may give the wrong impression to the programmer / reader of the code.

对于局部类，在成员/方法上内联将导致编译器错误，并且成员和方法没有链接。

关于命名空间上的内联，请参见this和this

一个用例可能发生在继承上。例如，如果以下所有情况都为真:

你有某个类的基类 基类需要是抽象的 基类除了析构函数之外没有纯虚方法 您不希望为基类创建CPP文件，因为这是徒劳的

然后你必须定义析构函数;否则，你会有一些未定义的引用链接错误。此外，你不仅要定义，还要用inline关键字定义析构函数;否则，您将有多个定义链接错误。

这可能发生在一些只包含静态方法或编写基异常类的辅助类上。

让我们举个例子:

Base.h:

class Base {
public:
    Base(SomeElementType someElement) noexcept : _someElement(std::move(someElement)) {}

    virtual ~Base() = 0;

protected:
    SomeElementType _someElement;
}

inline Base::~Base() = default;

Derived1.h:

#include "Base.h"

class Derived1 : public Base {
public:
    Derived1(SomeElementType someElement) noexcept : Base(std::move(someElement)) {}

    void DoSomething1() const;
}

Derived1.cpp:

#include "Derived1.h"

void Derived1::DoSomething1() const {
    // use _someElement 
}

Derived2.h:

#include "Base.h"

class Derived2 : public Base {
public:
    Derived2(SomeElementType someElement) noexcept : Base(std::move(someElement)) {}

    void DoSomething2() const;
}

Derived2.cpp:

#include "Derived2.h"

void Derived2::DoSomething2() const {
    // use _someElement 
}

通常，抽象类有一些纯虚方法，而不是构造函数或析构函数。因此，你不必分离基类的虚析构函数的声明和定义，你可以只写virtual ~ base () = default;关于类声明。然而，在我们的案例中，情况并非如此。

据我所知，MSVC允许你在类声明上写这样的东西:virtual ~Base() = 0{}。所以你不需要用内联关键字分离声明和定义。但它将只与MSVC编译器工作。

现实世界的例子:

BaseException.h:

#pragma once

#include <string>

class BaseException : public std::exception {
public:
    BaseException(std::string message) noexcept : message(std::move(message)) {}
    virtual char const* what() const noexcept { return message.c_str(); }

    virtual ~BaseException() = 0;

private:
    std::string message;
};

inline BaseException::~BaseException() = default;

SomeException.h:

#pragma once

#include "BaseException.h"

class SomeException : public BaseException {
public:
    SomeException(std::string message) noexcept : BaseException(std::move(message)) {}
};

SomeOtherException.h:

#pragma once

#include "BaseException.h"

class SomeOtherException : public BaseException {
public:
    SomeOtherException(std::string message) noexcept : BaseException(std::move(message)) {}
};

main.cpp:

#include <SomeException.h>
#include <SomeOtherException.h>

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

static int DoSomething(int argc) {
    try {
        switch (argc) {
        case 0:
            throw SomeException("some");
        case 1:
            throw SomeOtherException("some other");
        default:
            return 0;
        }
    }
    catch (const exception& ex) {
        cout << ex.what() << endl;
        return 1;
    }
}

int main(int argc, char**) {
    return DoSomething(argc);
}

除非您正在编写一个库或有特殊的原因，否则您可以忘记内联，而是使用链接时间优化。它消除了函数定义必须在头文件中才能考虑跨编译单元进行内联的要求，这正是内联所允许的。

(但请参阅为什么不使用链接时间优化?)