Were GNU C extensions proposed for the standard?

[Chuck Phillips]

In article <2909 at paperboy.OSF.ORG> meissner at curley.osf.org (Michael Meissner) writes:
> | o	the addition of the "inline" keyword

> It was proposed, and rejected on the grounds of qualitity of
> implementation (ie, the compiler should be smart enough to
> figure out when to inline).

Apples and oranges.  What about "inline" keyword as a less kludgey
alternative to macros?  That is, the inline function would be in a _header_
file like a macro.  The idea of the inline _keyword_, IMHO, is a macro-like
facility that preserves the _semantics_ of C, _unlike cpp macros_.

This is _not_ the same as automatically inlining small functions which, I
agree, the compiler should do if optimization is enabled.

I submit for discussion:

Consider the difficulty of automatic inlining of separately compiled
functions.  I'm no compiler expert, but this _seems_ like an expensive
optimization to implement.  By having an inline (keyword) definition in the
header file normally used when accessing the function (e.g. string.h), this
type of optimization can be had much cheaper.

Ideas?  Opinions?
--
		Chuck Phillips -- chuckp%ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.COM
		                  uunet!ncr-sd!chuckp%ncr-fc
		                  ccncsu.ColoState.EDU!chuckp%ncr-fc