Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> but (i) "static inline" is safe,
Yes sure.
> (ii) who knows what silly
> patches Apple will apply to their next GCC series, and (iii) let's not
> put too much effort into systems that deliberately break things.
I don't think this is fair towards Apple. The GCC developers did this
change of the inline semantics in four steps:
1. implemented the new C99 semantics.
then only started to think about backward compatibility:
2. implemented __attribute__((gnu_inline)) for when the old semantics is
needed,
3. added __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ and __GNUC_GNU_INLINE__ as indicator macros,
4. added a warning in the gcc-4.2.x branch.
Apple apparently simply pulled patches from the development branch.
RedHat did the same; remember gcc-2.96?
Bruno
