From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30151 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2012 09:48:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 29970 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2012 09:48:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:48:01 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M2R00400UVOAB00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:47:59 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.172.156]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M2R004Q8V7Z7880@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:47:59 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:04:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: New ARI warning Fri Apr 20 01:58:17 UTC 2012 In-reply-to: <20120420043807.GI2852@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83d372ivjh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20120420015817.GA7169@sourceware.org> <4F90C4F7.10302@codesourcery.com> <20120420043807.GI2852@adacore.com> 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: 2012-04/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:38:07 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > 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? Absolutely, the warning should be tossed. There's nothing wrong with using it.