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)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:40:38PM -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
> Something that is given as implementation specific can occasionally be
> worked out among different compiler vendors, you stand a better chance
> of getting the behavior into the language than to get that type of
> coordination.
Funnily enough, for every other decent compiler out there, "inline"
means "inline if you can". For every previous version of gcc, it
meant the same thing. Now, it suddendly means nothing at all. So why
do you have an "inline" keyword in the first place, why was it in gcc
for C before it happened in the standard, and why your reaction when
it's eventually added to the standard is to ensure that it doesn't do
anything?
Remember, inline was _added_ to the standard because it was considered
useful by the users. It's not legacy like register, it's a recent
addition, not even 4 years old. Unfortunately, because of the as-is
rule, the standard can't actually express what it's supposed to mean.
But it's a QOI issue to actually have it do what's expected. The only
reasonable discussion is whether to have -fobey-inline or
-fno-obey-inline as default.
OG.