As Weddington, Eric wrote: > To be a bit more specific (now that I've had a bit more caffiene): > Adding a feature (a warning) is always easier than trying to change > the semantics of an existing feature (always_inline).
That's why I also liked the idea of just adding a warning. The only remaining potential for a debate would be whether this warning should always be enabled (I think so, because it's a usage error, according to the description of the always_inline attribute), or made optional. In the latter, another -Wxxx option would be needed, and I guess it takes also some energy to convince everybody to at least include it into -Wall then. > Changing > semantics seems to incur a bit more debate and risks earlier > rejection. But I agree that it's not impossible. I don't know whether I'm motivated for that though. ;-) -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) _______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
