This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: dalej at apple dot com, dewar at gnat dot com
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, aph at redhat dot com, echristo at redhat dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:17:31 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)
> Ah, but if the inline is performed it's not an expired scope any more.
> One of
> the early C++ suites did exactly this, expecting the inline to be
> performed.
No, that's not correct thinking, the expired scope is a semantic concept. The
fact that the undefined effect may be different if inlining takes place or not
means nothing (or at least I would guess this). I can't imagine that somethingt
like this suddently becomes defined if inlining takes place, the C standard
can't be that vague ... but surely someone who knows the standard really well
will read us the chapter and verse :-)