fixincludes for glibc 'inline' non-C99 conformance

[Geoffrey Keating]

On 03/11/2006, at 3:20 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Geoffrey Keating wrote:
>
>> I don't see how backing out the patch will permit anyone else to  
>> make progress.  Users cannot update their code to be C99-compliant  
>> if they have no compiler that will accept the resulting program.
>
> That's a false dichotomy: you could always provide an additional  
> option to use the C99 semantics, e.g., -fc99-extern-inline, or - 
> std=notgnuc99.

If the patch is backed out, there is no such option.

I already suggested -std=really-gnuc99 and that was not met with huge  
enthusiasm.

> I'm big on standards compliance, and I'm not at all big on  
> extensions, but I don't think your change is appropriate without  
> more warning, discussion, etc.  It's just too abrupt.

There has been 5 months of warning of this specific patch, and 5  
*years* of warning in the GCC documentation that this change will  
happen.  End-users will have an additional year or more before a GCC  
release is made with this patch.  I cannot imagine how this is "too  
abrupt".

> The bottom line is that right now there is controversy.  You feel  
> your patch is appropriate; some other experienced maintainers  
> don't.  Why not back it out (or conditionalize it) and work to  
> build consensus?

It is not a question of what I feel about the patch; I do not object  
to most of the suggestions.  The problem is that I posted the patch  
in May.  Now, in November, suddenly there is "controversy".  I think  
it is incumbent on those who are now creating the controversy to do  
the work associated with it, including rebuilding consensus and  
writing patches, if they wish that work to be done.  Had they done  
this earlier I might have had time to help; now I do not.

However, as a gesture of good faith, I will write a small patch which  
allows a GCC developer to easily switch the apparently-controversial  
part of the behaviour on or off (by changing a #define and  
recompiling).  <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG-W_GZGed8>.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2462 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/attachments/20061104/b33a5192/attachment.p7s>