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: Compiling GCC with g++: a report

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: jason at redhat dot com, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 00:00:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report
References: <m364xapix6.fsf@merlin.cs.tamu.edu> <1116907280.9577.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On May 24, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:

Use of bare 'inline' is just plain wrong in our source code; this has
nothing to do with C++, no two C compilers implement bare 'inline'
alike.  Patches to add 'static' to such functions (AND MAKING NO OTHER
CHANGES) are preapproved, post-slush.

That will not work for the cases where the bare 'inline' are used
because they are external also in this case.  Now this is where C99 and
C++ differs at what a bare 'inline' means so I have no idea what to
do, except for removing the 'inline' in first place.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report
  - From: Marcin Dalecki

References:
- Compiling GCC with g++: a report
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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