Lets say you have some functions in some classes are called together like this
myclass::render(int offset_x, int offset_y)
{
otherClass.render(offset_x, offset_y)
}
This pattern will repeat for a while possibly through 10+ classes, so my question is:
Are modern C++ compilers smart enough to recognise that wherever the program stores function parameters - From what wikipedia tells me it seems to vary depending on parameter size, but that for a 2 parameter function the processor register seems likely - doesn't need to be overridden with new values?
If not I might need to look at implementing my own methods
I think it's more likely that the compiler will make a larger-scale optimization. You'd have to examine the actual machine code produced, but for example the following trivial attempt:
#include <iostream>
class B {
public:
void F( int x, int y ) {
std::cout << x << ", " << y << std::endl;
}
};
class A {
B b;
public:
void F( int x, int y ) {
b.F( x, y );
}
};
int main() {
A a;
a.F( 32, 64 );
}
causes the compiler (cl.exe from VS 2010, empty project, vanilla 'Release' configuration) to produce assembly that completely inlines the call tree; you basically get "push 40h, push 20h, call std::operator<<."
Abusing __declspec(noinline) causes cl.exe to realize that A::F just forwards to B::F and the definition of A::F is nothing but "call A::F" without stack or register manipulation at all (so in that case, it has performed the optimization you're asking about). But do note that my example is extremely contrived and so says nothing about the compiler's ability to do this well in general, only that it can be done.
In your real-world scenario, you'll have to examine the disassembly yourself. In particular, the 'this' parameter needs to be accounted for (cl.exe usually passes it via the ECX register) -- if you do any manipulation of the class member variables that may impact the results.
Yes, it is. The compiler performs dataflow analysis before register allocation, keeping track of which data is where at which time. And it will see that the arg0 location contains the value that needs to be in the arg0 location in order to call the next function, and so it doesn't need to move the data around.
I'm not a specialist, but it looks a lot like the perfect forwarding problem that will be solved in the next standard (C++0x) by using rvalue-references.
Currently I'd say it depend on the compiler, but I guess if the function and the parametters are simple enough then yes the function will serve as a shortcut.
If this function is imlpemented directly in the class definition (and then becoming implicitely candidate for inlining) it might be inligned, making the call directly call the wanted function instead of having two runtime calls.
In spite of your comment, I think that inlining is germane to this discussion. I don't believe that C++ compilers will do what you're asking (reuse parameters on the stack) UNLESS it also inlines the method completely.
The reason is that if it's making a real function call it still has to put the return address onto the stack, thus making the previous call's parameters no longer at the expected place on the stack. Thus in turn is has to put the parameters back on the stack a second time.
However I really wouldn't worry about that. Unless you're making a ridiculous number of function calls like this AND profiling shows that it's spending a large proportion of its time on these calls they're probably extremely minimal overhead and you shouldn't worry about it. For a function that small however, mark it inline and let the compiler decide if it can inline it away completely.
If I understand the question correctly, you are asking "Are most compilers smart enough to inline a simple function like this", and the answer to that question is yes. Note however the implicit this paremeter which is part of your function (because your function is part of a class), so it might not be completely inlineable if the call level is deep enough.
The problem with inlining is that the compiler will probably only be able to do this for a given compilation unit. The linker is probably less likely to be clever enough to inline from one compilation unit to another.
But given the total trivial nature of the function and that both functions have exactly the same arguments in the same order, the cost of the function call will probably be only one machine instruction viz. an additional branch (or jump) to the true implementation. There is no need to even push the return address onto the stack.
Related
This question already has answers here:
When to use the inline function and when not to use it?
(14 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
If a function is only used in one place and some profiling shows that it's not being inlined, will there always be a performance advantage in forcing the compiler to inline it?
Obviously "profile and see" (and in the case of the function in question, it did prove to be a small perf boost). I'm mostly asking out of curiosity -- are there any performance disadvantages to this with a reasonably smart compiler?
No, there are notable exceptions. Take this code for example:
void do_something_often(void) {
x++;
if (x == 100000000) {
do_a_lot_of_work();
}
}
Let's say do_something_often() is called very often and from many places. do_a_lot_of_work() is called very rarely (one out of every one hundred million calls). Inlining do_a_lot_of_work() into do_something_often() doesn't gain you anything. Since do_something_often() does almost nothing, it would be much better if it got inlined into the functions that call it, and in the rare case that they need to call do_a_lot_of_work(), they call it out of line. In that way, they are saving a function call almost every time, and saving code bloat at every call site.
One legitimate case where it makes sense not to inline a function, even if it's only called from a single location, is if the call to the function is rare and almost always skipped. Keeping the instructions before the function call and the instructions after the function call closely together in memory may allow those instructions to be kept in the processor cache, when that would be impossible if those blocks of instructions were separated in memory.
It would still be possible for the compiler to compile the function call as if using goto, avoiding having to keep track of a return address, but if the compiler has already determined that the function call is rare, then it makes sense to not pay as much time optimising that call.
You can't "force" the compiler to inline it, unless you are considering some implementation-specific tools that you have not mentioned, so the question is entirely moot.
If your compiler is already not doing so then it has a reason.
If the function is called only once, there should be no performance disadvantages in inlining it. However, that does not mean you should blindly inline all functions. For example, if the code in question is Linux kernel code and you're using the BUG_ON or WARN_ON statement to print a stack trace, you don't get the full stack trace which includes the inline function. Instead, the stack trace contains only the name of the calling function.
And, as the other answer explained, the "inline" doesn't actually force the compiler to inline the function, it just is a hint to the compiler. However, there is actually an attribute __attribute__((always_inline)) in GCC which should force the compiler to inline the function.
Make sure that the function definition is not exported. If it is, it obviously needs to be compiled, and that means that if your function is big probably the call will not be inlined. (Remember, it's the call that gets inlined, not the function. A function might get inlined in one place and called in another, etc.)
So even if you know that the function is called only from one place, the compiler might not. Make sure to hide the definition of your function to the other object files, for example by defining it in the anonymous namespace.
That being said, even if it is called from only one place, it does not mean that it is always a good idea to inline it. If your function is called rarely, it might waste a lot of memory in the CPU cache.
Depending on how you wrote your function.
In some cases, yes!
void doSomething(int *src, int *dst,
const int loopCountInner, const int loopCountOuter)
{
int i, j;
for(i=0; i<loopCounterOuter; i++){
for(j=0; j<loopCounterInner; j++){
*dst = someCalculations(*src);
src++;
dst++
}
}
}
In this example, if this function is compiled as non-inlined, then compiler basically has no knowledge about the trip count of the two loops. This is a big deal for implementations that rely strongly on compile-time optimizations.
I came across a even worse case: compiler assumes loopCounterInner to be a large value and optimized for that case, but loopCounterInner is actually 3 or 5 so the best choice is to fully unroll the inner loop!
For C++ probably the best way to do it is to make them template variables, but for C, the only way to generate differently optimized code for different use cases is to inline the function.
No, if the code is a rarely used function then keeping it off the 'hot path' will be beneficial. An inline function will use up cache space [instruction cache] whether or not the code is actually used. Tools like LTCG combined with Profile Guided optimisation (in the MSFT world, not sure about Linux) go to great pains to keep rarely used code off the hot path and this can make a significant difference
From what I know an inline function is an optimization to enhance performance, thus it should run as fast as a macro. Inline function's code should be as short as possible.
I wonder if it make sense to embed functions calls inside an inline function. If the answer is yes, in which context and what are the restrictions?
Actually, I am asking this question because I looked at a code of someone who is calling functions such as "socket()", "sendto()" and "memset()" from inline functions; something that overrides the purpose of an inline function in my opinion.
Note: In the code I have there is no use of any conditional calls to the functions, the inline function just passes arguments to the called functions.
I wonder if it make sense to embed functions calls inside an inline function.
Of course it does. Inlining a call to your function is still an optimisation, removing the cost of that function call and allowing further optimisations in the context of the calling function, whether or not it in turn calls other functions.
in which context and what are the restrictions?
I've no idea what you mean by "context"; but there are no restrictions on what you can do in an inline function. The only semantic effects of declaring a function inline are to allow multiple identical definitions of the, and require a definition in any translation unit that uses the function. In all other respects, it's the same as any other function definition.
Comment posted as answer, by request:
If the guy who wrote the code believed that inline had any meaningful impact on performance, he was manifestly NOT 'doing the right thing'.
Performance comes from correct algorithm selection and avoiding cache misses.
Headaches come from naive premature optimisation techniques that may have worked in 1991
I see no a priori reason why inline code could not contain function calls.
Argument passing aside, inlining inserts the lines of code as they stand, reducing call overhead and allowing local/ad-hoc optimizations.
For instance, inline void MyInline(bool Perform) { if (Perform) memset(); } could very well be skipped when invoked with MyInline(false).
Inlining could also allow inlining of the internal function calls, resulting in even more (micro)optimization opportunities.
The compiler will choose when to inline. And you should avoid attempting premature optimisation at the expense of exposing your implementation.
The compiler may be able to optimise away the forwarding of the functions you are calling. It might do that anyway with optimisation flags even if you do not use the inline keyword.
The time to use the inline keyword is when you want to make a header-only file to use in multiple projects without having to use a link-library. In reality this doesn't really mean "inline" at all, it means "one definition only" even across compilation units calling the function.
In any case you should look at this wiki question / answer:
Benefits of inline functions in C++?
It makes a perfect sense.
Consider a function that consists of two possible branches of execution — a fast path which is activated when certain condition holds (most of the time) and a slow path.
Inlining the whole thing would result in growing the size of the code for little benefit. The slow path complexity may prevent the compiler from inlining the function.
If you make the slow path into a separate function an interesting opportunity opens.
It makes it possible to inline the condition and the fast path while a slow path remains a function call. Inlining the fast path allows to avoid function call overhead most of the time. The slow path is already slow hence the call overhead is negligible.
First, in C++, an "inline" function (one declared in the header file or labeled as such) is just a suggestion to the compiler. The compiler itself will make the decision on whether or not to actually make it inline.
There are three reasons why to inline a function:
Pushing another round of variables onto the stack is expensive, as is branching to the new point in the program.
Sometimes we can do local optimizations with the intermediates of the function (though I wouldn't count on it!)
Put the definition of a function in the header file (work around).
Take the following example
void NonInlinable(int x);
inline void Inline() { NonInlinable(10);}
This makes a ton of sense to inline. I remove 1 function call, so if NonInlinable is pretty fast, then this could be a huge speedup. So regardless of whether or not I'm calling functions, I could still want to inline the call.
Now another example:
inline int Inline(int y) {return y/10;}
//main
...
int x = 5;
int y = Inline(5);
int z = x % 10;
The modulo and devise operations are usually calculated by the same instruction. A really nice compiler, can compute y and z in 1 assembly instruction! magic
So in my mind, a better question to ask is when should I not use inline functions:
When I want to separate definition from declaration (very good practice for readability, and premature optimization is the root of all evil).
When I want to hide my implementation/use good encapsulation.
Consider the following (a bit conceived) example:
// a.cpp
int mystrlen(const char* a) {
int l = 0;
while (a[l]) ++l;
return l;
}
// b.cpp
extern int mystrlen(const char*);
int foo(const char* text) {
return mystrlen(text) + mystrlen(text);
}
It would be very nice to be able to tell the compiler that mystrlen() doesn't have side-effects and thus it can re-use the old result from mystrlen(text) instead of calling it twice.
I don't find anything in the docs about it and restrict or one of its variances doesn't seem to do the job, either. A look at the output code with all optimizations on (switch /Ox) shows that the compiler really generates two calls. It even does so if I put both functions in one module.
Any solution to this or can anyone confirm that there is no solution in VC++?
MSVC has no support for pure/const attributes, and also has no intention to support them. See https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/804288/msvc-add-const-and-pure-like-function-attributes. Other compilers, such as GCC and Clang do support such attributes. Also see pure/const function attributes in different compilers.
What you are looking for won't help you.
In general, the compiler can't elide the calls, even if if believes the function is without side effects. Where did you get that pointer? Does a signal handler have access to that same pointer? Maybe another thread? How does the compiler know the memory pointed to by the pointer isn't going to change out from underneath it?
Compiler's do frequently eliminate redundant fetches within a function body, even for things fetched through pointers. But there is a limit to how much of this they can or even should do.
Here you're asking the compiler to believe that a bare pointer you have to who knows where will maintain consistent contents between two function calls. That's a lot of assuming. Sure you haven't declared your pointer volatile, but still, it's a lot of assuming.
Now, if you had a buffer on the stack and were passing it to that function twice in a row, the compiler can pretty safely assume that if you haven't passed the pointer out somewhere else that the contents of that buffer aren't going to be changed by some random other thing in the program at some unexpected time.
For example:
// b.cpp
extern int mystrlen(const char*);
int foo(int bar) {
char number[20];
snsprintf(number, 20, "%d", bar);
return mystrlen(number) + mystrlen(number);
}
Given assumptions the compiler could make about what snprintf did with number given that it's a library function, it could then elide the second call to mystrlen if there was a way to declare the mystrlen had no side effects.
Because C++ is an imperative language rather than a functional one, what you're trying to achieve is not possible.
It looks like the behaviour that you're expecting here is is that of referential transparency, which there isn't a way to tell the compiler about in C++ (but in a purely functional programming language like Haskell would be implicit).
Hopefully a future standard of C++ will introduce a keyword that will allow us to mark functions as 'pure' or 'without side effect'.
I read this line in a book:
It is provably impossible to build a compiler that can actually
determine whether or not a C++ function will change the value of a
particular variable.
The paragraph was talking about why the compiler is conservative when checking for const-ness.
Why is it impossible to build such a compiler?
The compiler can always check if a variable is reassigned, a non-const function is being invoked on it, or if it is being passed in as a non-const parameter...
Why is it impossible to build such a compiler?
For the same reason that you can't write a program that will determine whether any given program will terminate. This is known as the halting problem, and it's one of those things that's not computable.
To be clear, you can write a compiler that can determine that a function does change the variable in some cases, but you can't write one that reliably tells you that the function will or won't change the variable (or halt) for every possible function.
Here's an easy example:
void foo() {
if (bar() == 0) this->a = 1;
}
How can a compiler determine, just from looking at that code, whether foo will ever change a? Whether it does or doesn't depends on conditions external to the function, namely the implementation of bar. There's more than that to the proof that the halting problem isn't computable, but it's already nicely explained at the linked Wikipedia article (and in every computation theory textbook), so I'll not attempt to explain it correctly here.
Imagine such compiler exists. Let's also assume that for convenience it provides a library function that returns 1 if the passed function modifies a given variable and 0 when the function doesn't. Then what should this program print?
int variable = 0;
void f() {
if (modifies_variable(f, variable)) {
/* do nothing */
} else {
/* modify variable */
variable = 1;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (modifies_variable(f, variable)) {
printf("Modifies variable\n");
} else {
printf("Does not modify variable\n");
}
return 0;
}
Don't confuse "will or will not modify a variable given these inputs" for "has an execution path which modifies a variable."
The former is called opaque predicate determination, and is trivially impossible to decide - aside from reduction from the halting problem, you could just point out the inputs might come from an unknown source (eg. the user). This is true of all languages, not just C++.
The latter statement, however, can be determined by looking at the parse tree, which is something that all optimizing compilers do. The reason they do is that pure functions (and referentially transparent functions, for some definition of referentially transparent) have all sorts of nice optimizations that can be applied, like being easily inlinable or having their values determined at compile-time; but to know if a function is pure, we need to know if it can ever modify a variable.
So, what appears to be a surprising statement about C++ is actually a trivial statement about all languages.
I think the key word in "whether or not a C++ function will change the value of a particular variable" is "will". It is certainly possible to build a compiler that checks whether or not a C++ function is allowed to change the value of a particular variable, you cannot say with certainty that the change is going to happen:
void maybe(int& val) {
cout << "Should I change value? [Y/N] >";
string reply;
cin >> reply;
if (reply == "Y") {
val = 42;
}
}
I don't think it's necessary to invoke the halting problem to explain that you can't algorithmically know at compile time whether a given function will modify a certain variable or not.
Instead, it's sufficient to point out that a function's behavior often depends on run-time conditions, which the compiler can't know about in advance. E.g.
int y;
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
if (argc > 2) y++;
}
How could the compiler predict with certainty whether y will be modified?
It can be done and compilers are doing it all the time for some functions, this is for instance a trivial optimisation for simple inline accessors or many pure functions.
What is impossible is to know it in the general case.
Whenever there is a system call or a function call coming from another module, or a call to a potentially overriden method, anything could happen, included hostile takeover from some hacker's use of a stack overflow to change an unrelated variable.
However you should use const, avoid globals, prefer references to pointers, avoid reusing variables for unrelated tasks, etc. that will makes the compiler's life easier when performing aggressive optimisations.
There are multiple avenues to explaining this, one of which is the Halting Problem:
In computability theory, the halting problem can be stated as follows: "Given a description of an arbitrary computer program, decide whether the program finishes running or continues to run forever". This is equivalent to the problem of deciding, given a program and an input, whether the program will eventually halt when run with that input, or will run forever.
Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
If I write a program that looks like this:
do tons of complex stuff
if (condition on result of complex stuff)
{
change value of x
}
else
{
do not change value of x
}
Does the value of x change? To determine this, you would first have to determine whether the do tons of complex stuff part causes the condition to fire - or even more basic, whether it halts. That's something the compiler can't do.
Really surprised that there isn't an answer that using the halting problem directly! There's a very straightforward reduction from this problem to the halting problem.
Imagine that the compiler could tell whether or not a function changed the value of a variable. Then it would certainly be able to tell whether the following function changes the value of y or not, assuming that the value of x can be tracked in all the calls throughout the rest of the program:
foo(int x){
if(x)
y=1;
}
Now, for any program we like, let's rewrite it as:
int y;
main(){
int x;
...
run the program normally
...
foo(x);
}
Notice that, if, and only if, our program changes the value of y, does it then terminate - foo() is the last thing it does before exiting. This means we've solved the halting problem!
What the above reduction shows us is that the problem of determining whether a variable's value changes is at least as hard as the halting problem. The halting problem is known to be incomputable, so this one must be also.
As soon as a function calls another function that the compiler doesn't "see" the source of, it either has to assume that the variable is changed, or things may well go wrong further below. For example, say we have this in "foo.cpp":
void foo(int& x)
{
ifstream f("f.dat", ifstream::binary);
f.read((char *)&x, sizeof(x));
}
and we have this in "bar.cpp":
void bar(int& x)
{
foo(x);
}
How can the compiler "know" that x is not changing (or IS changing, more appropriately) in bar?
I'm sure we can come up with something more complex, if this isn't complex enough.
It is impossible in general to for the compiler to determine if the variable will be changed, as have been pointed out.
When checking const-ness, the question of interest seems to be if the variable can be changed by a function. Even this is hard in languages that support pointers. You can't control what other code does with a pointer, it could even be read from an external source (though unlikely). In languages that restrict access to memory, these types of guarantees can be possible and allows for more aggressive optimization than C++ does.
To make the question more specific I suggest the following set of constraints may have been what the author of the book may have had in mind:
Assume the compiler is examining the behavior of a specific function with respect to const-ness of a variable. For correctness a compiler would have to assume (because of aliasing as explained below) if the function called another function the variable is changed, so assumption #1 only applies to code fragments that don't make function calls.
Assume the variable isn't modified by an asynchronous or concurrent activity.
Assume the compiler is only determining if the variable can be modified, not whether it will be modified. In other words the compiler is only performing static analysis.
Assume the compiler is only considering correctly functioning code (not considering array overruns/underruns, bad pointers, etc.)
In the context of compiler design, I think assumptions 1,3,4 make perfect sense in the view of a compiler writer in the context of code gen correctness and/or code optimization. Assumption 2 makes sense in the absence of the volatile keyword. And these assumptions also focus the question enough to make judging a proposed answer much more definitive :-)
Given those assumptions, a key reason why const-ness can't be assumed is due to variable aliasing. The compiler can't know whether another variable points to the const variable. Aliasing could be due to another function in the same compilation unit, in which case the compiler could look across functions and use a call tree to statically determine that aliasing could occur. But if the aliasing is due to a library or other foreign code, then the compiler has no way to know upon function entry whether variables are aliased.
You could argue that if a variable/argument is marked const then it shouldn't be subject to change via aliasing, but for a compiler writer that's pretty risky. It can even be risky for a human programmer to declare a variable const as part of, say a large project where he doesn't know the behavior of the whole system, or the OS, or a library, to really know a variable won't change.
Even if a variable is declared const, doesn't mean some badly written code can overwrite it.
// g++ -o foo foo.cc
#include <iostream>
void const_func(const int&a, int* b)
{
b[0] = 2;
b[1] = 2;
}
int main() {
int a = 1;
int b = 3;
std::cout << a << std::endl;
const_func(a,&b);
std::cout << a << std::endl;
}
output:
1
2
To expand on my comments, that book's text is unclear which obfuscates the issue.
As I commented, that book is trying to say, "let's get an infinite number of monkeys to write every conceivable C++ function which could ever be written. There will be cases where if we pick a variable that (some particular function the monkeys wrote) uses, we can't work out whether the function will change that variable."
Of course for some (even many) functions in any given application, this can be determined by the compiler, and very easily. But not for all (or necessarily most).
This function can be easily so analysed:
static int global;
void foo()
{
}
"foo" clearly does not modify "global". It doesn't modify anything at all, and a compiler can work this out very easily.
This function cannot be so analysed:
static int global;
int foo()
{
if ((rand() % 100) > 50)
{
global = 1;
}
return 1;
Since "foo"'s actions depends on a value which can change at runtime, it patently cannot be determined at compile time whether it will modify "global".
This whole concept is far simpler to understand than computer scientists make it out to be. If the function can do something different based on things can change at runtime, then you can't work out what it'll do until it runs, and each time it runs it may do something different. Whether it's provably impossible or not, it's obviously impossible.
I have question when I compile an inline function in C++.
Can a recursive function work with inline. If yes then please describe how.
I am sure about loop can't work with it but I have read somewhere recursive would work, If we pass constant values.
My friend send me some inline recursive function as constant parameter and told me that would be work but that not work on my laptop, no error at compile time but at run time display nothing and I have to terminate it by force break.
inline f(int n) {
if(n<=1)
return 1;
else {
n=n*f(n-1);
return n;
}
}
how does this work?
I am using turbo 3.2
Also, if an inline function code is too large then, can the compiler change it automatically in normal function?
thanks
This particular function definitely can be inlined. That is because the compiler can figure out that this particular form of recursion (tail-recursion) can be trivially turned into a normal loop. And with a normal loop it has no problem inlining it at all.
Not only can the compiler inline it, it can even calculate the result for a compile-time constant without generating any code for the function.
With GCC 4.4
int fac = f(10);
produced this instruction:
movl $3628800, 4(%esp)
You can easily verify when checking assembly output, that the function is indeed inlined for input that is not known at compile-time.
I suppose your friend was trying to say that if given a constant, the compiler could calculate the result entirely at compile time and just inline the answer at the call site. c++0x actually has a mechanism for this called constexpr, but there are limits to how complex the code is allowed to be. But even with the current version of c++, it is possible. It depends entirely on the compiler.
This function may be a good candidate given that it clearly only references the parameter to calculate the result. Some compilers even have non-portable attributes to help the compiler decide this. For example, gcc has pure and const attributes (listed on that page I just linked) that inform the compiler that this code only operates on the parameters and has no side effects, making it more likely to be calculated at compile time.
Even without this, it will still compile! The reason why is that the compiler is allowed to not inline a function if it decides. Think of the inline keyword more of a suggestion than an instruction.
Assuming that the compiler doesn't calculate the whole thing at compile time, inlining is not completely possible without other optimizations applied (see EDIT below) since it must have an actual function to call. However, it may get partially inlined. In that case the compiler will inline the initial call, but also emit a regular version of the function which will get called during recursion.
As for your second question, yes, size is one of the factors that compilers use to decide if it is appropriate to inline something.
If running this code on your laptop takes a very long time, then it is possible that you just gave it very large values and it is simply taking a long time to calculate the answer... The code look ok, but keep in mind that values above 13! are going to overflow a 32-bit int. What value did you attempt to pass?
The only way to know what actually happens is to compile it an look at the assembly generated.
PS: you may want to look into a more modern compiler if you are concerned with optimizations. For windows there is MingW and free versions of Visual C++. For *NIX there is of course g++.
EDIT: There is also a thing called Tail Recursion Optimization which allows compilers to convert certain types of recursive algorithms to iterative, making them better candidates for inlining. (In addition to making them more stack space efficient).
Recursive function can be inlined to certain limited depth of recursion. Some compilers have an option that lets you to specify how deep you want to go when inlining recursive functions. Basically, the compiler "flattens" several nested levels of recursion. If the execution reaches the end of "flattened" code, the code calls itself in usual recursive fashion and so on. Of course, if the depth of recursion is a run-time value, the compiler has to check the corresponding condition every time before executing each original recursive step inside the "flattened" code. In other words, there's nothing too unusual about inlining a recursive function. It is like unrolling a loop. There's no requirement for the parameters to be constant.
What you mean by "I am sure about loop can't work" is not clear. It doesn't seem to make much sense. Functions with a loop can be easily inlined and there's nothing strange about it.
What are you trying to say about your example that "displays nothing" is not clear either. There is nothing in the code that would "display" anything. No wonder it "displays nothing". On top of that, you posted invalid code. C++ language does not allow function declarations without an explicit return type.
As for your last question, yes, the compiler is completely free to implement an inline function as "normal" function. It has nothing to do with function being "too large" though. It has everything to do with more-or-less complex heuristic criteria used by that specific compiler to make the decision about inlining a function. It can take the size into account. It can take other things into account.
You can inline recursive functions. The compiler normally unrolls them to a certain depth- in VS you can even have a pragma for this, and the compiler can also do partial inlining. It essentially converts it into loops. Also, as #Evan Teran said, the compiler is not forced to inline a function that you suggest at all. It might totally ignore you and that's perfectly valid.
The problem with the code is not in that inline function. The constantness or not of the argument is pretty irrelevant, I'm sure.
Also, seriously, get a new compiler. There's modern free compilers for whatever OS your laptop runs.
One thing to keep in mind - according to the standard, inline is a suggestion, not an absolute guarantee. In the case of a recursive function, the compiler would not always be able to compute the recursion limit - modern compilers are getting extremely smart, a previous response shows the compiler evaluating a constant inline and simply generating the result, but consider
bigint fac = factorialOf(userInput)
there's no way the compiler can figure that one out........
As a side note, most compilers tend to ignore inlines in debug builds unless specifically instructed not to do so - makes debugging easier
Tail recursions can be converted to loops as long as the compiler can satisfactorily rearrange the internal representation to get the recursion conditional test at the end. In this case it can do the code generation to re-express the recursive function as a simple loop
As far as issues like tail recursion rewrites, partial expansions of recursive functions, etc, these are usually controlled by the optimization switches - all modern compilers are capable of pretty signficant optimization, but sometimes things do go wrong.
Remember that the inline key word merely sends a request, not a command to the compiler. The compliler may ignore yhis request if the function definition is too long or too complicated and compile the function as normal function.
in some of the cases where inline functions may not work are
For functions returning values, if a loop, a switch or a goto exists.
For functions not returning values, if a return statement exists.
If function contains static variables.
If in line functions are recursive.
hence in C++ inline recursive functions may not work.