<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: gcc extensions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/10/28/gcc-extensions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/10/28/gcc-extensions/</link>
	<description>code is freedom -- patching my itch</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:50:35 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/10/28/gcc-extensions/comment-page-1/#comment-521</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:39:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/10/28/gcc-extensions/#comment-521</guid>
		<description>The keyword inline is part ISO C99. It&#039;s just not a C89 feature. It is also a GCC extension and for extern functions the semantics are not 100% identical but it can be safely used for static functions albeit small functions will be inlined anyway when optimizing so it&#039;s not so horribly important. C code is by definition no C++ code. If you write your C code so that a C++ likes it too, you&#039;ll have to write ancient style C and all those pointless cast make your code ugly and less safe. There&#039;s no point in compiling C code with a C++ compiler and C++ is just the worst C derivative of all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The keyword inline is part ISO C99. It&#8217;s just not a C89 feature. It is also a GCC extension and for extern functions the semantics are not 100% identical but it can be safely used for static functions albeit small functions will be inlined anyway when optimizing so it&#8217;s not so horribly important. C code is by definition no C++ code. If you write your C code so that a C++ likes it too, you&#8217;ll have to write ancient style C and all those pointless cast make your code ugly and less safe. There&#8217;s no point in compiling C code with a C++ compiler and C++ is just the worst C derivative of all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MenTaLguY</title>
		<link>http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/10/28/gcc-extensions/comment-page-1/#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator>MenTaLguY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:03:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outflux.net/blog/archives/2005/10/28/gcc-extensions/#comment-76</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s probably worth noting he is writing specifically about C.

&#039;inline&#039; is a standard language feature in C++ (not so in C...), so if you bring this header into Inkscape you&#039;d better remove the #defines of &#039;inline&#039; to avoid messing up the normal C++ semantics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s probably worth noting he is writing specifically about C.</p>
<p>&#8216;inline&#8217; is a standard language feature in C++ (not so in C&#8230;), so if you bring this header into Inkscape you&#8217;d better remove the #defines of &#8216;inline&#8217; to avoid messing up the normal C++ semantics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
