Re: Handling of extern inline in c99 mode

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h dot b dot furuseth at usit dot uio dot no>]

I'm not subscribed to this list, I just noticed this discussion
while browsing around...  Don't know if the list accept
non-subscriber messages either, but let's see:


Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> codesearch.google.com finds about 6000 uses of "extern line" in
>   code written in C, but the search
>       inline -static -extern -# lang:c file:\.c$
>   finds only 100 occurrences (...)

Because you don't search for "inline" declarations with no "static" nor
"extern", but files with "inline" which contain no "static" nor "extern"
_anywhere_ in the file, if I understand codesearch correctly.


One wish for whatever happens with "inline":

Please document what #if tests one should put in a portable (non-GNU:-)
program in order to (a) get the intended operation of gcc 'inline' and
(b) not drown the program's users in warning messages.

In this regard, 'inline' which behaves differently with -std=c99 and
gnu99 will make for a more complicated test.  So will introducing the
change - even just the default warning - in many branches at once.
A new -Wno-inline-warning option would not help either, since older
gcc versions will complain about the new option.

Maybe you should #define __gcc_gnu_inline__ and __gcc_c99_inline__
as the proper attribute/keyword so that a program can #ifdef on them.


I wonder what "-pedantic" should do about "inline"?  I've seen many
people use "-pedantic" without "-std"/"-ansi", because on many
systems the latter break some header files.

-- 
Regards,
Hallvard