------- Comment #35 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-15 16:44 ------- (In reply to comment #33) > Yes, this is what I understand. I think we need a new flag specifying > if in the source the 'inline' keyword was used and solely use that for > inline warning purposes. (That is, I would not expect to get a warning > for non-'inline' class methods either, regardless of -fdefault-inline > setting). >
Then, you would need more than a new flag. Currently the problem is to distinguish 1) the explicit 'inline' keyword and the implicit inline keyword of -fdefault-inline from 2) no inline whatsoever and no inline because of -fno-default-inline Currently: explicit inline: DECL_DECLARED_INLINE fdefault-inline : DECL_DECLARED_INLINE fno-default-inline: DECL_DECLARED_INLINE no inline: (DECL_INLINE is an internal note that the function may be inlinable. Neither explicit inline nor -fdefault-inline actually ensure that DECL_INLINE will be always true). Ideally: explicit inline: DECL_DECLARED_INLINE && DECL_INLINE_LINKAGE fdefault-inline : DECL_DECLARED_INLINE && DECL_INLINE_LINKAGE fno-default-inline: DECL_INLINE_LINKAGE no inline: In your proposal we will need: explicit inline: DECL_EXPLICITLY_DECLARED_INLINE && DECL_DECLARED_INLINE && DECL_INLINE_LINKAGE fdefault-inline : DECL_DECLARED_INLINE && DECL_INLINE_LINKAGE fno-default-inline: DECL_INLINE_LINKAGE no inline: -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18071
