From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20702 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2003 00:57:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20680 invoked by uid 48); 25 Apr 2003 00:57:12 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030425005712.20679.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: David.Moore@intel.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, David.Moore@intel.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/10488: Implementation of extern inline is exactly backwards X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg01073.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Implementation of extern inline is exactly backwards State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Fri Apr 25 00:57:12 2003 State-Changed-Why: This weird "extern inline" thing in gcc predates standardization, as far as I know (this is also why glibc uses this stuff). Unfortunately, the standard didn't take over gcc semantics, and since glibc uses this we can't just switch :-( I recall that there have been lots of discussions aboutthis on the mailing lists. You will probably find quite some material by searching them -- google gives me some 4230 hits for the combination "extern inline" and gcc. This is a well-known deficiency in gcc, so I think I can close this report. Wolfgang http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10488