I would have thought any inlining would enlarge a program compared with single-copy-and-call functions.
Extern inline would imply that there had to be an un-inlined copy somewhere to advertise to the linker, sort of like a weak symbol.
At 07:56 17/08/01 -0700, John Alvord wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Mike Bond wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:37:39AM -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
This patch should fix the build failure, though it doesn't explain why gcc doesn't inline such a simple function.
<snip: static inline causes more bloat than extern inline >
Linux itself just went through a transformation of extern inline into static inline. It was triggered by a change in gcc, presumably for the better. There was some on-list grumbling, but the change was necessary.
john