[llvm-commits] [llvm] r158800 - in /llvm/trunk: include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h include/llvm/Analysis/Dominators.h include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfo.h include/llvm/Bitcode/ReaderWriter.h include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineInstrBundle.h include/llvm/Instructio

[Chandler Carruth]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 1:39 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>
> > Author: chandlerc
> > Date: Wed Jun 20 03:39:33 2012
> > New Revision: 158800
> >
> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=158800&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Remove 'static' from inline functions defined in header files.
> >
> > There is a pretty staggering amount of this in LLVM's header files, this
> > is not all of the instances I'm afraid. These include all of the
> > functions that (in my build) are used by a non-static inline (or
> > external) function. Specifically, these issues were caught by the new
> > '-Winternal-linkage-in-inline' warning.
>
> Should this patch be reverted?  I thought it was decided that that flag
> was a bad idea for C++ code, since the whole concept is predicated on
> "inline" working like the C99 inline semantics, which are bone-headed...


I think the patches are still fine -- I didn't commit any of the really
questionable changes. I don't see why we would want both 'static' and
'inline', especially in a header file? I chatted w/ a few others and none
had any theories as to why this would be desirable...

I don't feel particularly strongly about it though, especially if there is
a benefit to the pattern that I'm not aware of. If there *is* a benefit,
should we systematically follow this pattern?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20120620/40700690/attachment.html>