------- Comment #29 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-17 10:46 ------- (In reply to comment #28) > Open regression with no activity since February 14. Ping? >
The last thread about this was in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-07/msg00523.html Summarising: * C++ front-end sets DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P for methods always. It sets DECL_INLINE unless -fno-default-inline. * -Winline warns when a function "declared inlined" is not inlined. Currently, "declared inline" means DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P is set. * DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P controls linkage. * -fno-default-inline should not affect linkage. Geoff Keating said: "DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P in the C++ front-end means 'this function is an "inline function" as defined by the standard'. There are two ways to get a function to be an inline function: (a) the 'inline' keyword, and (b) define the function inside a class; the ways are equivalent from the language's perspective. See [dcl.fct.spec] in the C++ standard, especially paragraphs 2 and 3. The question here is whether -Winline should be limited to those inline functions in case (a) or whether it can include those in case (b) too." Therefore, if -Winline also include case (b) then the warning seems correct. A function that was declared inline was not inlined. Alternatively, we could not warn for -fno-default-inline but then we would have to detect that: 1) -fno-default-inline was given, 2) this is a method, 3) it wasn't declared using the 'inline' keyword. On the other hand, if -Winline is limited to case (a), then we need a way to distinguish between (a) and (b). Therefore, either the warning is correct and this is not a bug, or we need a way to distinguish between (a) and (b). At least, this is how I see. I wouldn't mind to implement other solution if one is clearly described and agreed. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18071
