smeenai added a comment. In D67414#1873445 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67414#1873445>, @efriedma wrote:
> > https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/cY9-HQ > > gcc's behavior for your testcase makes no sense. We have to emit the > definition of a static function: it can't be defined in any other translation > unit because it's impossible to name in any other translation unit. Note the > "_ZL" prefix. (Given the way ELF works, I guess you could get around that > limitation if the function is `extern "C"`, but still...) You're right. Perhaps we should just not warn for the combination of `static` and `gnu_inline` then? On my end I'm just planning to drop the `gnu_inline` in the internal code though, since I can't fathom a reason for wanting the combination of the two. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67414/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67414 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
