On 1/22/2015 1:23 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Jeff Law wrote:
Inline: Defining inline functions (as fast as macros).
Doesn't seem to belong here.
Given that inline isn't really an extension anymore, one could argue this
isn't relevant anymore.
Well, we need to document -std=gnu89 / __gnu_inline__ attribute semantics.
And the fact that a C99 feature is accepted as an extension in C89 mode is
something that needs documenting. Though for C extensions maybe the
documentation would better describe exceptions - extensions from newer C
standards that are *not* enabled in older standard modes, or that are only
enabled when you use alternative keywords such as __inline. Then you
wouldn't need to go into the details e.g. of long long, just that it's an
extension accepted in C89 / C++98 mode.
I can't speak to whether removing this topic is a good idea or not. For
the moment, I have moved volatile, inline and thread-local from the
Attributes section to their own section (Specifiers). If it is time to
remove inline from this page (or just re-work it), someone else will
need to pursue this.
(For C++ there may be more features than for C that require -std=c++11 to
enable them, so listing exceptions may not be the right approach for C++.)
Ways in which GNU C features go beyond the corresponding standard feature
do also need documenting. (So VLA documentation needs to refer to VLAs in
structures, and to the interaction with alloca, and to parameter forward
declarations, even if the basic feature is described in terms of a C99
feature also supported in C89 mode and for C++ and there's less need to
describe the C99 semantics.)
