Macro that inlines functions

General Usage
1

I want to use some inlinable functions with @turbo for cleaner syntax, which currently does not work.

Is it possible to write a macro that gets an expression, and then for every function that should inline, replaces it by the function body? This way I could use my inlinable functions and write something like @inline_expand @turbo expr.

2

not really. Macro can’t see runtime value thus it won’t know what’s the method body to “paste” in place of your function call

3

I’m not sure I completely understand, the expression that should be inlined should be completely known at compile time, right?

4

macros run on source code before anything happens, not during compile time

5

My bad, you’re right. Then it would not work if there’s any dispatch going on. However, in my case I just want to write some functions, basically as an alias to make the code a bit cleaner and semantically easier to understand. The macro could scan the source code to find the function body in this case.

6

you can use GitHub - rafaqz/Mixers.jl: Julia mixin macros. Mixed, not stirred to “puke” the source code body into the location you want. @pour

7

Not sure I understand your question correctly, but the @inline macro is supposed to work at the call site as well: Essentials · The Julia Language

@inline block

Give a hint to the compiler that calls within block are worth inlining.

# The compiler will try to inline `f`
@inline f(...)

# The compiler will try to inline `f`, `g` and `+`
@inline f(...) + g(...)
8

Note for your hypothetical macro to fulfil its purpose it would need to be expanded before the outer @turbo. I think (but do not know) that the outermost macro is expanded first. If that is the case then even your hypothetical macro solution could not work.

9

IIUC, the issue that @f.ij wants to do something like:

@turbo ....
    myfunction(...)
end

to write cleaner code inside the loop. However in that case LoopVectorization.jl cannot see inside the function call to optimize stuff.

10

oh, in that case @pour won’t work, because macro evaluation is outside-in (opposite of function evaluations)

11

I assumed the same thing but it does seem to work, I’m not a great fan of the syntax though. Moreover I’m fine with writing a macro that wraps around @turbo.