From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27671 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2009 16:36:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 27655 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2009 16:36:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:35:54 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBAB105BB; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:35:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9751051A; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:35:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LnF26-0008QI-JQ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:35:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB ARIndex cleanup Message-ID: <20090327163550.GA32343@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org References: <000001c9ae14$24fb7cd0$6ef27670$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090326230959.GN9472@adacore.com> <001201c9aeb5$44ece820$cec6b860$@u-strasbg.fr> <20090327160004.GT9472@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090327160004.GT9472@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00631.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 09:00:04AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > As Daniel seems to think that is can be useful (maybe for non GNU > > compilers?) should we use some configure set macro like INLINE that > > would be set to nothing for GNU gcc but could be inline for other > > compilers? > > I personally don't see the benefit. I propose we leave things as > they are for now and remove the rule about the use of inline. > Daniel? Yes, I agree. The inline keyword is useful for GCC also. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery