On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 10:10, R. Diez via Gcc-help <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Sometimes, when I convert a function to a C++ template, I forget to remove
> the 'static' or 'inline' attributes:
>
> template< typename IntegerType >
> static inline // Unnecessary
> IntegerType my_template ( IntegerType v )
> {
> return v;
> }
>
> int main ( void )
> {
> return my_template( 123 );
> }
>
> Such 'static' and 'inline' attributes do not make sense for a template, do
> they? Or do they actually have an effect?
>
They definitely have an effect.
Exactly the same effects as on non-templates. 'static' gives it internal
linkage, so the function has a different identity in every object. 'inline'
makes it an inline function, which increases the probability that GCC will
choose to inline the function when optimizing. The 'inline' specifier also
allows a function to be defined in multiple objects, without getting
redefinition errors - that aspect of 'inline' is not needed for function
templates, because they can always be defined in multiple objects.
(Why are you using 'static inline' on the non-template functions in the
first place? Why not just 'inline'?)
> Is there a way to make GCC issue warnings about them? At the very least,
> it would save some head scratching during code reviews.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> rdiez
>
