[patch] don't give bodies for both 'extern inline' and normal versions of a function in same file

[Dan Kegel]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>Interesting.  It sounds like glibc will have to use 'static inline'
>>instead of 'extern inline' eventually, if not for gcc-3.5.
> 
> 
> But this change means you can't have both the static inline and the
> external, non-inline definition available in the same translation
> unit, which was the point of GCC's extension.
> 
> 
>>The patch I posted should avoid this problem, too.
> 
> Exactly.  By removing the inlinable definition, IIUC.

Only from glibc-internal files like atof.c.  User programs would still see both.

>>I bet you a nickel glibc will eventually apply my patch.
> 
> 
> 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?
- Dan

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