https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008
--- Comment #14 from Chris Elrod <elrodc at gmail dot com> --- To me, an "inline" function is one that the compiler inlines. It just happens that the `inline` keyword also means both comdat semantics, and possibly hiding the symbol to make it internal (-fvisibility-inlines-hidden). It also just happens to be the case that the vast majority of the time I mark a function `inline`, it is because of this, not because of the compiler hint. `static` of course also specifies internal linkage, but I generally prefer the comdat semantics: I'd rather merge than duplicate the definitions. If there is a new keyword or pragma meaning comdat semantics (and preferably also specifying internal linkage), I would rather have the name reference that. I'd rather have a positive name about what it does, than negative: "quasi_inline: like inline, except it does everything inline does except the inline part". Why define as a set diff -- naming it after the thing it does not do! -- if you could define it in the affirmative, based on what it does in the first place?
