At Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:48:24 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [1 <multipart/signed (7bit)>] > [1.1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>] > On 20050111T174249+0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > I would expect GCC to eventually fix its inline handling to conform with > > C99 > > > > The problem isn't C99, but C90, __inline is handled differently than > > inline by gcc. The former works even with -ansi enabled. > > I was under the impression that __inline is an alias for inline, with no > semantic differences. If I'm correct, then extern __inline will change > semantics when extern inline does.
Yes, this is likely, see also the file CONFORMANCE in the glibc source tree. We can probably just piggy-back on glibc on this issue, and ignore it until it is fixed there. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
