Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.c > #397414

Re: gcc and 'include'

Show all headers | View raw

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

[..in reference to the follwoing translation unit..]

>>>>>>     inline int
>>>>>>     F(){
>>>>>>         return 0;
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     int
>>>>>>     main(void){
>>>>>>         return F();
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     int F();
>>>>>>

[..end excerpt..]

>>> In the comment above I was talking specifically about that:
>>> https://godbolt.org/z/4TazP4sq1
>>
>> I don't know what you were expecting me to learn by looking at
>> that page.  As far as I can tell it adds no information beyond
>> what has already been presented.
>
> The page shows that when, according to your suggestion, source
> code is modified to make it well-defined then body of F() is
> generated regardless of optimization level.  As you likely
> expected.

I did expect it, because the C standard requires it.  I was simply
trying to point out what the C standard requires.

> It was a point of suggested modification, was not it?

It was not my intention to offer a suggestion.  I was only trying
to provide information about what the C standard requires.


Let me now try to address the second portion of your posting.
Here are some excerpts (from your earlier remarks) for context.
(The excerpts below may be out of order.)

[michael-s] It is indeed well-defined.  But well-defined behavior
[michael-s] does not match the most probable intention of programmer,
[michael-s] which is to create a body of F() in case that it was not
[michael-s] actually inlined and to *not* create it otherwise.

[michael-s] So, by C standard, there is no situation in which 'inline'
[michael-s] with no addition qualifuers like 'static' or 'extern' can
[michael-s] be used with predictabe outcome?

For inline functions, static inline functions and non-static inline
functions serve different purposes.

A static inline function is meant to be used to give the compiler
discretion as to whether to expand the body inline or to produce a
regular static function body, independently, in each translation
unit where the function is defined (and presumably called).

A non-static inline function is meant to be used where the body may
be expanded inline, but it is also important that there be exactly
one translation unit where the function is defined as a normal
(which is to say, not inline) function, and having external linkage.
One reason this might be important is that the address of function
will be taken in one or more translation units, and it is important
that the address be the same throughout the program.

Any programmer understanding to the contrary of these descriptions
is at odds with what the C standard says.  So I think it's a good
idea for anyone with a different understanding to be apprised of
what the C standard prescribes, especially if they have definite
expectations otherwise.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-26 22:36 +0000
  Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 16:12 -0700
    Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-27 10:55 +0000
      Re: gcc and 'include' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-27 13:49 +0100
      Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 10:51 -0700
        Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-25 10:09 -0700
          Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 15:58 -0700
      Re: gcc and 'include' Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-27 21:27 +0000
        Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-27 22:05 +0000
          Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 17:03 -0700
          Re: gcc and 'include' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-03-28 05:10 +0100
          Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-28 20:37 +0300
            Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-28 18:33 +0000
              Re: gcc and 'include' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-29 00:53 +0000
                Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-29 22:37 +0100
                Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-30 05:33 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-30 14:42 +0100
                Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-30 16:53 +0300
                Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-30 18:11 +0100
                Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-30 08:27 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-30 11:54 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-30 21:54 +0100
                Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-30 18:07 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-31 11:39 +0100
                Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-31 13:56 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-06 20:56 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-06 23:12 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-03-30 21:06 -0400
              Re: gcc and 'include' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-29 11:24 +0200
                Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-29 12:44 +0100
                Re: gcc and 'include' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-31 15:57 +0200
            Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-30 07:20 -0700
          Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-30 05:07 -0700
  Re: gcc and 'include' Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-27 00:25 +0000
    Re: gcc and 'include' Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-30 07:13 +0000
      Re: gcc and 'include' Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-03-30 07:54 -0700
        Re: gcc and 'include' Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-31 01:46 +0000
          Re: gcc and 'include' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-03-31 05:28 +0000
  Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-27 04:10 +0300
    Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-26 19:08 -0700
      Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-27 16:47 +0300
        Re: gcc and 'include' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-27 16:43 +0100
        Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-27 09:03 -0700
          Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-29 11:46 +0300
            Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-30 08:19 -0700
              Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-30 20:08 +0300
                Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-31 00:26 -0700
                Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-31 11:27 +0300
                Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-07 09:45 -0700
        Re: gcc and 'include' Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-03-28 10:25 -0700
          Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-29 10:37 +0300
            Re: gcc and 'include' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-29 11:30 +0200
            Re: gcc and 'include' Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-03-29 07:22 -0700
            Re: gcc and 'include' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-03-29 13:56 -0400
              Re: gcc and 'include' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-03-29 21:39 +0300
                Re: gcc and 'include' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-03-29 20:08 -0400
                Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-30 01:58 +0100
                Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-30 07:59 -0700
  Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-26 19:06 -0700
  Re: gcc and 'include' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-03-27 16:20 +0000
    Re: gcc and 'include' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-03-27 18:07 +0100
    Re: gcc and 'include' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-03-28 18:48 -0400
  Re: gcc and 'include' Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-03-27 22:38 -0700
    Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-28 00:30 -0700
      Re: gcc and 'include' Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-03-29 16:15 -0700
        Re: gcc and 'include' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-30 00:41 -0700

csiph-web