[llvm-commits] [llvm] r68940 - in /llvm/trunk: docs/ include/llvm/ include/llvm/CodeGen/ lib/AsmParser/ lib/Bitcode/Reader/ lib/Bitcode/Writer/ lib/CodeGen/ lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/ lib/Linker/ lib/Target/CppBackend/ lib/VMCore/ test/CodeGen/Gener
Chris Lattner
clattner at apple.com
Mon Apr 13 11:38:58 PDT 2009
On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>>>
>>> If all you're concerned about is a problem in practice, what we had
>>> before is probably OK; this form of inline is not widely used. The
>>> reason to do what you're doing IMO is to implement something
>>> standard
>>> conformant.
>>
>> What we had before is not acceptable for Clang. It defaults to gnu99
>> (unlike gcc, which defaults to gnu89), so no inline functions get
>> inlined without this.
>
> I see. Sure you want to do that? I think you'll find most existing
> code expects inline to behave like gnu89.
Yes, I'm sure. Code has an easy workaround (build with -std=gnu89)
and "moving to a new compiler" is a good time to change things like
default languages IMO. C99 is not new anymore :)
-Chris
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list