This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, martin at MPA-Garching dot MPG dot DE
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 07:50:37 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
So, the quotes from the standard make it clear that the explicit inline
keyword is significant. I have no idea how the standard could be read
otherwise.
> The inline specifier indicates to the implementation that inline
> substitution of the function body at the point of call is to be
> preferred to the usual function call mechanism.
Of course that's pretty meaningless given that all semantics is "as if".
Whenever the standard appears to demand a particular code sequence,
appearences are deceptive!
> There is no consensus, either, that the current logic is good.
> I'm not shouting louder. I'm just trying to get people to consider
> the *language* _under discussion_ and to prevent them from transmuting
> the intent of the keyword.
But your quotes from the standard make it clear that no one is transmuting
anything here.