From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 966 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2012 08:54:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 956 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2012 08:54:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:53:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B7E1C755E for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id TkODv1EPUDM6 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4583D1C7559 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:38:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7E85A14561A; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:48:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New ARI warning Fri Apr 20 01:58:17 UTC 2012 Message-ID: <20120420043807.GI2852@adacore.com> References: <20120420015817.GA7169@sourceware.org> <4F90C4F7.10302@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F90C4F7.10302@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00666.txt.bz2 > IIUC, these alarms are moved from vec.[ch] to common/vec.[ch], so they > can be ignored. Let me know if I am wrong. Generally speaking, if there are only a few, I personally think that we should at least try to address them, especially if it is easy. But that shouldn't necessarily have to be addressed by the person who moved the code. In this particular case, I kind of agree with the warning, but at the same time, I don't really see why we should necessarily ban the use of the "inline" keyword. I'm actually considering the idea of getting rid of this ARI rule. Any opinion on this topic? My tendency is to discourage the use of that keyword unless it has been shown to make a difference. But it's only based on what more experienced engineers have told me, and I never really had the need to verify it. -- Joel