On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 2:06 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs via Gcc wrote: > > On 08.05.24 11:50, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > "With the |-fpermissive| option, programs can use C99 inlining semantics > > > > and features that were removed from C99" > > > > > > > > Umm, what? this sentence doesn't make sense. > > > In the context of mentioning the -std=gnu89/-std=c89 workarounds > > > > I thought as much, but shouldn't it then say "programs can use *C89* > > inlining semantics that were removed from C99"? > > There was no C89 inline semantics, only GNU89 one. Only C99 introduced > inline keyword into the standard.
It should probably say "With the |-fpermissive| option, programs can use C99 inlining semantics and features from C89 that are removed with C99 and are now errors." Or do away completely with mentioning 'C99 inlining semantics' which is I think what is confusing in the first place. Maybe "With the |-fpermissive| option programs can use features from later C standards together with those from C89 and earlier that were removed in C99 that are now errors." But this is an overly long sentence as well. > Jakub >
