> > "Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 11/1/06, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > According to the proposal, we will restore the GNU handling for > > > > "extern inline" even when using -std=c99, which will fix the problem > > > > when using glibc. > > > > > > I am probably overlooking something, but if the only problematic system > > > is glibc, maybe this can be fixed with a fixincludes hack? > > > > That would be a massive hack. > > Indeed. > > Moreover, glibc is not the only problematic system. gcc historically > supported "extern inline" long before c99 existed, and there is plenty > of existing code which uses gcc's definition. I believe that we need > to give that code a decent chance to change before we switch over to > c99. That is why I recommended adding warnings to all active > branches, and postponing the changed behaviour of "extern inline" to > gcc 4.4.
In the 4.3 timeframe, can we also add a flag to enable the correct behavior? Yes the problem with this is that we have to support this flag for a long time but the benifit is that we can change the default to the new way with just flipping a switch. Also it would be nice to have an attribute or a new keyword to get the old "extern inline" behavior, something like __extern_but_inline? Or is there a real equavilant with C99 style inling (I have not followed this part close enough to figure that out). Thanks, Andrew Pinski
