From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
To: Mike Harrold <mharrold@cas.org>
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: -fno-default-inline
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:31:00 -0000
Message-id: <orr8w26121.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
References: <200106291735.NAA03725@mah21awu.cas.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00328.html

On Jun 29, 2001, Mike Harrold <mharrold@cas.org> wrote:

> Or is this a case of pleading with the libstdc++ folks to mark functions
> as inline where appropriate?

I'm not sure we should add redundant keywords to libstdc++ code to
make room for a non-standard extension.  Is it really too hard for you
to move the member function definitions out of the class body, so that
the implicit inline Standard rule doesn't apply to them?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me