https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- But it wouldn't be redundant for GCC, it would have a different, non-portable meaning. Does it say "inline constexpr" because the code was written by someone who likes redundancy for the sake of explicitness, or because somebody wants the GCC-specific optimisation hint? If you have to add a comment to the code saying "don't remove this keyword, it's here because it does something" then the meaning is neither redundant, not explicit. It's non-obvious and an implicit meaning not backed up by other compilers or the standard. IMO the ideal solution is for GCC to stop using whether a function is inline as an optimisation hint. Then we wouldn't need some extra GCC-specific way to override that.
