This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: add #define to revert C99 inlining behaviour
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 18:59 -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Apparently it is 'controversial' that -std=c99 should implement C99.Didn't we agree on an option instead of a define inside GCC?
So, here is a #define. You can switch it off, on again, off again, on
again, and so on, to your heart's delight.
I think an option would be a bad idea if it means code cannot determine
the inline semantics from the combination of __GNUC__, __GNUC_MINOR__ and
It looks to me like we've got a variety of opinions:
* Steven B. and Joseph think the patch should stay in, but Joseph thinks
we should back it out at the end of Stage 1 if we haven't added the
attribute Ian proposed, or if GLIBC has yet to be changed to use the
attribute. Joseph's a C maintainer, so I give his opinion a lot of weight.
* Daniel has pointed out that you can't build GLIBC with this patch in,
so right now people can't test mainline GCC with GLIBC. Since we don't
have the attribute yet, the GLIBC people can't fix GLIBC either, except
by making more intrusive changes. (That seems unfortunate to me, and it
doesn't seem to foster the spirit of GCC/GLIBC cooperation that Joseph
quite rightly indicates that we need.) Ian points out that Geoff's
original mail says that "only" GLIBC seems to be obviously affected by
this change, but since GLIBC is in fact the C library for the GNU
system, it's certainly important.
* Mike suggested an option (and provided a patch for same), but Joseph
argues that an option isn't good, for reasons above.
* Ian and I have suggested reverting the patch entirely, and then
working on Ian's transition plan. Ian has volunteered to implement the
transition plan, if the patch is reverted.
I'm not sure how we make progress. I requested the patch be reverted,
but it takes two maintainers to start the 48-hour reversion clock, and I
never got a second. Geoff's checked in an #ifdef, but the default is
still the new behavior, and as Ian indicates, this isn't how we normally
I do not intend to comment further on this issue. Instead, I shall hope
it goes away well before I have to start thinking about making the 4.3
branch. Certainly, if nothing were to change, I would revert this patch
on my authority as RM on the 4.3 release branch, since not being able to
build the GNU C Library would be a serious problem wht the GNU C
Compiler. I shall hope it doesn't come to that.
(650) 331-3385 x713