[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]

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