Re: [patch] don't give bodies for both 'extern inline' and normalversions of a function in same file

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > Exactly.  By removing the inlinable definition, IIUC.
>
> > Only from glibc-internal files like atof.c.  User programs would
> > still see both.
>
> > > If GCC removes this useful extension, there won't be a way to express
> > > it, and the patch will have to go in, yes.
>
> > I assume this is a purely philosophical objection,
> > as even with my patch, user programs would continue to have access
> > to both inline and out-of-line copies.  Right?
>
> Only to a point.  If the function is called within glibc, even within
> the same translation unit, it would be nice to be able to use the
> inline definition.

I think it's only in the file atof.c that the inline version
won't be available with my patch.  All other parts of
glibc, in particular all internal uses of atof,
should be able to see both versions.   Or am I confused?
- Dan

--
My technical stuff: http://kegel.com
My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change