I mean the one available in current TU.

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:26 PM sasho648 <sasho648_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Well just require an implementation to use the inline version, if it's
> available.
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 8:19 PM Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> There is no guarantee that inline functions are actually inlined.
>>
>> They could even be inlined sometimes within a TU (hot code path) and
>> sometimes call a function, which is shared between TUs.
>>
>> It could generally lead to hard-to-find bugs, if the function definitions
>> would be different, depending on who calls the function.
>>
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> *Von:* sasho648 via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
>> *Gesendet:* Do 04.05.2023 19:12
>> *Betreff:* [std-proposals] Drop same sequence of tokens for inline
>> *An:* std-proposals_at_[hidden];
>> *CC:* sasho648 <sasho648_at_[hidden]>;
>> So why does inline functions need to have the same sequence of tokens in
>> different TU - imagine in a TU there is a preprocessor define that changes
>> the function definition - it would make sense this not to be UB.
>>
>> In C inline functions have internal linkage - it would make the same
>> sense for C++.
>>
>> Like I don't see a reason requiring inline functions to have the same
>> body - regardless of the statement above.
>>
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
>