From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200304121353.h3CDrGFf009208@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: %n$, *m$ and some other c99 support for doprnt.c
In-Reply-To: <2110-Sat12Apr2003120145+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> "from Eli Zaretskii
 at Apr 12, 2003 12:01:45 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:53:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > 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.

I'd say it's not an issue. *printf() is hardly time-critical, is it?


Right,

						MartinS