This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix PR/11067 Strange warning with pure virtual inlinefunction
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>
- Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:05:54 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR/11067 Strange warning with pure virtual inlinefunction
- References: <200306220150.04649.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu>
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:50:04 -0500, Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> When a pure virtual function is also marked as inline, gcc should not warn
>> about it not being defined with -Winline. The problem is the function is
>> declared inline but this warning does not make sense for pure virtual
>> functions.
>
> Why? It's admittedly rare, but it's legal to have a definition for a pure
> virtual function, and then it can also be inlined. The warning is just as
> useful (or not useful, IMHO) as for any other function.
Indeed. The standard doesn't make any exception to the inline linkage
rules for pure virtual functions.
Jason