Re: kernel-2.2.1-undefined references.

[Bob McWhirter <bob at werken dot com>]

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Lee Iverson wrote:
> > 
> > It occurs to me that we do, in fact have an acceptable method of
> > *guaranteeing* inlining of a *function* in gcc.  That is a combination
> > of a macro and the "Statement Expression" extension.
> 
> Sure. 
> 
> Why don't you just remove "inline" completely, then?

I'm probably coming into this waaaay too late, but I thought the
standards (C++ and C9X?) had definite things to say about what
'inline' should mean; that is, that it was a hint or recommendation
to the compiler, but by no means a direct imperative.

It seems that a guaranteed forced 'inline' would be non-conforming.

In that case, could there not be a magical Linus-Special Inline
such as __inline or otherwise, that'd be Just Like inline, but 
Better(tm)?

As far as egcs breaking things, I thought we pretty much expected
that (it's half the fun), and rely on gcc2 if we needed actual 
determinism. ;)

Feel free to ignore.

-Bob

--
Bob McWhirter    Shop Foreman, Decision Scientist, Cat Juggler 
Werken Digital   A division of the Benjamin J. Werken & Sons Company
bob@werken.com   http://www.werken.com./