This is the mail archive of the egcs@egcs.cygnus.com mailing list for the EGCS project. See the EGCS home page for more information.
In message <199902090116.RAA15478@atrus.synopsys.com> you write: > > > I've yet to see *any reference* to the claim that it is *documented* > > that the inline declaration *guarantees* that the function will always > > be inlined. Even with extern. That was your assumption, reading > > between the lines... > > RTFM. > > Remember, we are not talking about ISO C++ here. We are talking about > *C*, and specifically the GNU "extern inline" extension. So the M to R > is the gcc manual. > > We may have an issue later on with C9X, which may define "extern inline" > to mean something different. I actually did, and while the discussion of "extern inline" strongly implies that it is guaranteed behavior, it doesn't *really* come out and say it. There is a hedge above though in the sentence "Note that certain usages in a function definition can make it unsuitable for inline substitution." It looks like that is just a hedge on automatic inlining, but it is really a hedge on the whole process... I do think that the language is ambiguous and definitely suggests something that the compiler cannot guarantee. That's why I've submitted a patch to egcs-patches to clarify this: http://egcs.cygnus.com/ml/egcs-patches/1999-02/msg00176.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lee Iverson SRI International leei@ai.sri.com 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park CA 94025 http://www.ai.sri.com/~leei/ (650) 859-3307