On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 18:27, sasho648 via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I mean the one available in current TU.
>

And then you break every inline function that uses a local static variable.



>
> 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
>>>
>> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>