This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
- From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- To: Martin Reinecke <martin at MPA-Garching dot MPG dot DE>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:47:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
- References: <3F28CFED.3020002@mpa-garching.mpg.de>
Martin Reinecke <martin@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE> writes:
|> Hi,
|>
|> there seems to be a lot of confusion concerning the term
|> "implicit inline". Maybe it would remove some misunderstandings
|> if everyone would state clearly what he means by this term.
|>
|> In C++, the expression
|>
|> long a;
|>
|> is equivalent to
|>
|> long int a;
|>
|> This behavior is called "implicit int".
In C, the term "implicit int" is only used for cases where the type is
completely left out, like return type of a function definition (and this
syntax has been removed in C99). The "long" vs "long int" case is just a
different spelling for the same thing.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."