[LLVMdev] Inline semantics.

[Chris Lattner]

On Jan 2, 2008, at 2:23 AM, Richard Pennington wrote:
> Ellsif compiles and runs bzip2. During testing I noticed that if I set
> the optimization level to O2 or greater, I'd get an unresolved  
> symbol at
> link time.
>
> It turns out that a function is declared in a header file and is  
> used by
> two separate source files. In one of the source files, the function is
> defined with __inline__.
>
> If I do function inlining during compilation (i.e. bitcode creation) I
> get the unresolved symbol because the function is discarded after it  
> is
> inlined in the file that defines it. If I do function inlining during
> bitcode linking instead, everything works OK and the function is  
> inlined
> everywhere it is used.
>
> My question is, what should happen in this case? I don't mind  
> deferring
>  inlining until the link phase, but I have a feeling that that isn't
> correct behavior. Should a diagnostic be issued in this case?

The semantics of __inline__ are tricky and vary between C89, C99 and C+ 
+.  You should look at the relevant standards to find the meaning of  
each one.

Please don't cc the oink and llvmdev lists.  The oink list is a closed  
list.

-Chris