# Typing \`: \[1024\]u8 = undefined\` Less?

**URL:** <https://ziggit.dev/t/typing-1024-u8-undefined-less/13887>\
**Category:** Brainstorming\
**Tags:** language\
**Created:** [January 10, 2026, 3:33am UTC](https://ziggit.dev/t/typing-1024-u8-undefined-less/13887 "2026-01-10T03:33:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 22

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sze](https://ziggit.dev/user_avatar/ziggit.dev/sze/32/496_2.png) [@Sze](https://ziggit.dev/u/Sze)\
**Post date:** [January 13, 2026, 6:47pm UTC](https://ziggit.dev/t/typing-1024-u8-undefined-less/13887/22 "2026-01-13T18:47:04Z")

</div>

> [@npc1054657282](#):
>
> A question: I would really appreciate it if Zig’s `inline` semantics meant that it is guaranteed to inline. But conversely, will it still perform inlining optimizations without `inline`? Based on experience with other languages, I often deliberately avoid writing `inline` to prevent interfering with the compiler’s optimizations. If Zig’s philosophy is to require explicit `inline`, I might need to correct this and try to use `inline` more frequently!

> [@Inlining functions](https://ziggit.dev/t/inlining-functions/1341/3):
>
> It’s best to let the compiler decide when to inline a function, except for these scenarios: You want to change how many stack frames are in the call stack, for debugging purposes You want the comptime-ness of the arguments to propagate to the return value of the function Performance measurements demand it. Don’t guess! Otherwise you actually end up restricting what the compiler is allowed to do when you use inline which can harm binary size, compilation speed, and even runtime performance.

---

_[View the full topic](https://ziggit.dev/t/typing-1024-u8-undefined-less/13887)._