https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
--- Comment #8 from Sergey Organov ---
That's exactly the problem: why builtins are (implicitly) declared "extern
inline" in C99 compilation mode? It seems logical to rather declare them
"inline" in this mode.
Overall, even though my own issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
--- Comment #6 from Sergey Organov ---
For reference, the work-around for the problem is __attribute__((gnu_inline)),
i.e., effectively turning inlining mode back to pre-c99.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
Sergey Organov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
Sergey Organov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
--- Comment #5 from Sergey Organov ---
Thanks, but my particular problem is that I do want nice GCC builtin when it is
available, and I want generic inline implementation, rather than function call,
when GCC builtin is not available.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68272
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This is not a standards conformance bug, on multiple grounds:
* The C standard does not permit you to define your own copies of standard
library functions (that is, functions in the
