On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:21:41PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Should __attribute__ ((gnu_inline)) be treated the same as a gnu89
> extern inline definition? Or should the extern part be optional?
> That is, should there be a difference between these two definitions?
>
> extern __attribute__ ((gnu_inline)) inline int foo () { return 0; }
> __attribute__ ((gnu_inline)) inline int foo () { return 0; }
The gnu_inline attribute was meant to be a modifier for the inline
keyword, that would make it behave with GNU89 inline semantics.
So, extern __attribute__ ((gnu_inline)) inline int foo () { return 0; }
in -std=gnu99 mode is exactly the same as extern inline int foo () { return 0; }
in -std=gnu89 mode, similarly for
__attribute__ ((gnu_inline)) inline int foo () { return 0; } in -std=gnu99
vs. inline int foo () { return 0; } in -std=gnu89, etc.
The gnu_inline attribute should e.g. allow adding:
#define inline inline __attribute__ ((gnu_inline))
getting the same inline behavior as -std=gnu89 code (unless you #undef
it).
The testsuite/gcc.dg/inline-17.c testcase already verifies this.
Jakub
