Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!pmafire!uudell!bigtex!texsun!sundc!newstop!exodus!red-dwarf!pallas
From: pallas@eng.sun.com (Joseph Pallas)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Pre-proposal: ~const [Rev 1.6]
Message-ID: <pallas.663007582@red-dwarf>
Date: 4 Jan 91 16:46:22 GMT
References: <NGO.90Dec14093655@tammy.harvard.edu> <60083@microsoft.UUCP> <PCG.91Jan3145302@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk>
Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
Distribution: comp
Lines: 15

In <PCG.91Jan3145302@teachk.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
(Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

>One problem of the current definition of
>'inline' is that it specifies that every time the given function is
>called, it should be inlined. In other words, 'inline' currently means
>'can inline, *must* inline'. 

This is entirely wrong.  Unless the standard has changed the language
or intent of the ARM, 'inline' is a hint, and nothing more.

See p. 99 of E&S.  Complain about particular implementations to their
vendors.

joe