gcc-3.3 -> glibc-2.3.2 -> inlining failed warnings

John Anthony Kazos Jr. jkazos at vt.edu
Wed May 28 17:57:20 PDT 2003

>On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 02:12:42PM -0400, Zack Winkles wrote:
>I found this in CONFORMANCE. Might be relevant. Dunno.
>"glibc's use of extern inline conflicts with C99: in C99, extern inline
>means that an external definition is generated as well as possibly an
>inline definition, but in GCC it means that no external definition is
>generated.  When GCC's C99 mode implements C99 inline semantics, this
>will break the uses of extern inline in glibc's headers.  (Actually,
>glibc uses `extern __inline', which is beyond the scope of the
>standard, but it would clearly be very confusing for `__inline' and
>plain `inline' to have different meanings in C99 mode.)"

As I read the standard, though I've not read it thoroughly enough yet to 
say I "know the standard", it seems GCC does the right thing, even though 
that CONFORMANCE quotation makes it sound like it doesn't. If anyone wants 
me to quote the relevant portions of the standard, I will.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list