This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/11797] Change in inlining behavior vs. previous versions
- From: "mruff at chiaro dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 5 Aug 2003 00:29:22 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/11797] Change in inlining behavior vs. previous versions
- References: <20030804224050.11797.mruff@chiaro.com>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11797
------- Additional Comments From mruff at chiaro dot com 2003-08-05 00:29 -------
Subject: RE: Change in inlining behavior vs. previous versions
We already have thanks... We were just curious if
this behavior change is expected. Since it's invalid code
I think YES would be the proper response... I'll let
Steve pursue the out of line definition.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
> [mailto:gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:23 PM
> To: Michael Ruff
> Subject: [Bug c++/11797] Change in inlining behavior vs. previous
> versions
>
>
> PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT*
> gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11797
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc
> dot edu 2003-08-05 00:22 -------
> Use inline then as I had suggested.
>
>
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
>