This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: definition of "implicit" inline?
Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
| | > 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.
[ sorry I didn't finished my sentence ]
The transmuting is in trying to introduce a notion of implicit/explicit
inline and in saying that inline is for optimization and the compiler
knows better than the programmer. Inline is meant to be "substitute
the function body".
-- Gaby