This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, martin at MPA-Garching dot MPG dot DE
- Date: 31 Jul 2003 13:58:55 +0200
- Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20030731115037.06662F2DDA@nile.gnat.com>
dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
| So, the quotes from the standard make it clear that the explicit inline
| keyword is significant.
As significant as the notion of "inline function". 7.1.3/ is not
treated different.
| 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!
Only to someone that does not know why inlining is introduced in C++.
| > 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.
Yes, the is transmuting. That of saying that there is an implicit
inline and one that is explicit.
-- Gaby