内联允许您在头文件中放置函数定义，并在多个源文件中#包含该头文件，而不违反一个定义规则。

Why not make all functions inline by default? Because it's an engineering trade off. There are at least two types of "optimization": speeding up the program and reducing the size (memory footprint) of the program. Inlining generally speeds things up. It gets rid of the function call overhead, avoiding pushing then pulling parameters from the stack. However, it also makes the memory footprint of the program bigger, because every function call must now be replaced with the full code of the function. To make things even more complicated, remember that the CPU stores frequently used chunks of memory in a cache on the CPU for ultra-rapid access. If you make the program's memory image big enough, your program won't be able to use the cache efficiently, and in the worst case inlining could actually slow your program down. To some extent the compiler can calculate what the trade offs are, and may be able to make better decisions than you can, just looking at the source code.

内联函数更快，因为你不需要将参数和返回地址等东西推入或弹出堆栈;但是，它确实会使二进制文件略大一些。

有显著的区别吗?对大多数人来说，在现代硬件上还不够明显。但它可以产生影响，这对一些人来说已经足够了。

将某些东西标记为内联并不能保证它将是内联的。这只是给编译器的一个建议。有时候是不可能的比如你有一个虚函数，或者涉及到递归。有时候编译器会选择不使用它。

我可以看到这样的情况会产生明显的不同:

inline int aplusb_pow2(int a, int b) {
  return (a + b)*(a + b) ;
}

for(int a = 0; a < 900000; ++a)
    for(int b = 0; b < 900000; ++b)
        aplusb_pow2(a, b);

在将函数内联到so库时遇到了同样的麻烦。似乎内联函数没有编译到库中。因此，如果一个可执行文件想要使用库的内联函数，链接器会输出一个“未定义引用”错误。(我碰巧用gcc 4.5编译Qt源代码。

内联是对编译器的一个建议，它可以随意忽略。它非常适合小段代码。

如果你的函数是内联的，它基本上是插入到函数调用的代码中，而不是实际调用一个单独的函数。这有助于提高速度，因为你不必实际打电话。

它还帮助cpu进行流水线操作，因为它们不必用调用引起的新指令重新加载流水线。

唯一的缺点是可能会增加二进制大小，但只要函数很小，这就不会太大。

现在我倾向于把这类决定留给编译器(好吧，至少是聪明的编译器)。编写它们的人往往对底层架构有更详细的了解。

优势

通过在需要的地方内联代码，程序将在函数调用和返回部分花费更少的时间。它应该使您的代码运行得更快，即使它变得更大(见下文)。内联普通访问器可以是有效内联的一个例子。 通过将其标记为内联，你可以将函数定义放在头文件中(即它可以包含在多个编译单元中，而链接器不会抱怨)

缺点

It can make your code larger (i.e. if you use inline for non-trivial functions). As such, it could provoke paging and defeat optimizations from the compiler. It slightly breaks your encapsulation because it exposes the internal of your object processing (but then, every "private" member would, too). This means you must not use inlining in a PImpl pattern. It slightly breaks your encapsulation 2: C++ inlining is resolved at compile time. Which means that should you change the code of the inlined function, you would need to recompile all the code using it to be sure it will be updated (for the same reason, I avoid default values for function parameters) When used in a header, it makes your header file larger, and thus, will dilute interesting informations (like the list of a class methods) with code the user don't care about (this is the reason that I declare inlined functions inside a class, but will define it in an header after the class body, and never inside the class body).

内联魔法

The compiler may or may not inline the functions you marked as inline; it may also decide to inline functions not marked as inline at compilation or linking time. Inline works like a copy/paste controlled by the compiler, which is quite different from a pre-processor macro: The macro will be forcibly inlined, will pollute all the namespaces and code, won't be easily debuggable, and will be done even if the compiler would have ruled it as inefficient. Every method of a class defined inside the body of the class itself is considered as "inlined" (even if the compiler can still decide to not inline it Virtual methods are not supposed to be inlinable. Still, sometimes, when the compiler can know for sure the type of the object (i.e. the object was declared and constructed inside the same function body), even a virtual function will be inlined because the compiler knows exactly the type of the object. Template methods/functions are not always inlined (their presence in an header will not make them automatically inline). The next step after "inline" is template metaprograming . I.e. By "inlining" your code at compile time, sometimes, the compiler can deduce the final result of a function... So a complex algorithm can sometimes be reduced to a kind of return 42 ; statement. This is for me extreme inlining. It happens rarely in real life, it makes compilation time longer, will not bloat your code, and will make your code faster. But like the grail, don't try to apply it everywhere because most processing cannot be resolved this way... Still, this is cool anyway...:-p