rsmith added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:3518 +the behavior of ``inline`` in both C99 inline semantics and C++ inline +semantics). + ---------------- Might be useful to be a bit more explicit about how it differs: > [...] is just a hint. In particular, an out-of-line definition is still > emitted for a function with external linkage even if all call sites are > inlined, unlike in C99 inline semantics and C++ inline semantics. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:3524 + +And in particular as special cases, ``static inline`` emits an out-of-line +version if needed, a plain ``inline`` definition emits an out-of-line version ---------------- Maybe replace the "And in particular as special cases," with "Some important consequences:" ================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:3536 +basis. If ``__GNUC_GNU_INLINE__`` is defined, then the translation unit is +already being compiled with GNU inline semantics as the implied default. + ---------------- I'd add: "It is unspecified which macro is defined in a C++ compilation." (In practice, Clang always defines the GNU_INLINE macro, as do very old versions of GCC. More recent versions of GCC define GNU_INLINE in C++98 mode and STDC_INLINE in C++11 mode onwards, despite C++98 and C++11 having identical inline semantics. I don't think we want to give any guarantees about our behavior here.) Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D51190 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
