paulwalker-arm added a comment. In D96852#2568383 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96852#2568383>, @joechrisellis wrote:
> Speaking to @DavidTruby about this, it appears that this fix is insufficient > -- `inline` has important semantic meaning in C++ that means that we can't > simply omit the keyword here. > > The `inline` keyword bypasses the one-definition rule. If we have a function > defined in a header that isn't marked `inline`, and you include that header > in two different source files, then your program is ill formed because it > contains 2 definitions of that function. So we have to keep it for C++. That makes sense and suggests we're missing some additional C++ testing? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96852/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96852 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
