Inline documentation patch...

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Per Bothner wrote:
> 
> But rather than throwing insults at each other, can we agree on
> the following?
> * Inline cannot be absoluete, but it is more than a mere hint:
> It is a request or a strong suggestion.

Yes. Except that "extern inline" is already documented to be _much_ much
more than a "mere hint".

> * The documentation should be improved about when inline can
> and can't be supported.

Yes.

> * I don't think we can change the sementics of plain inline.
> However, it seems reasonable that "extern inline" should
> be an error when the compiler can't inline the function.

If "extern inline" still works as a "inline if at all humanly possible",
then I agree wholeheartedly. 

		Linus