Paul Eggert wrote: > > what was the motivation of changing > > 'static inline' to 'static' - other than "it's not needed" > > Partly so that the relevant modules wouldn't require AC_C_INLINE.
This is a bit backwards: In gnulib, we usually write the C code first, and then put together the .m4 file and the module description so that it fits with the C code. Not the other way around. > I wanted to work around issues when gcc -fno-inline was used. > This was during the reorganization when we got Gnulib to work > better with extern inline and C11. OK, so I guess this is not a sufficient reason for eliminating all current and future uses of 'static inline', from dfa.c to regexec.c. Ben Pfaff wrote: > For functions defined in .c files, I like to avoid "static inline" > because "inline" prevents the compiler from warning me when a function > is unused, which I often find to be a useful warning. Good point. And debuggability with gdb. Single-stepping through inline functions is quite confusing. On the other hand, for debugging, I most often compile with "-O0 -ggdb" anyway, which inhibits the inlining even of 'static inline' functions. Bruno
