Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:01:45 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id: <2110-Sat12Apr2003120145+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3E971C20.2BBE219@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:48:48 +0100)
Subject: Re: %n$, *m$ and some other c99 support for doprnt.c
References: <166043C1445 AT HRZ1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de> <3E971C20 DOT 2BBE219 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 20:48:48 +0100
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> "inline" is a suggestion to the compiler. So inline functions may not be
> inlined.

Unless we know that GCC sometimes doesn't inline (I think it always
does, at least when you use some -O switch), this is not an issue.