This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Redeclaration of used symbols


> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:44:35PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > extern inline int t()
> > {
> >   something...
> > }
> > int t()
> > {
> >   something else...
> > }
> 
> This is needed, so that you can include the headers with extern inlines
> when you provide definition which will be used when inlining fails.
> Having to add magic defines around each extern inline which will then
> be only used in the module providing the definition would be
> non-maintainable.

Yes, I agree that this testcase is unavoidable.
However what about the implementation details?  Would it be fine if we
leave undefined what body is expanded in-line? (that is what my patch
does, getting something more stable would require significant amount of
work)

Honza
> 
> 	Jakub


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]