> >Short version: "inline" alone is enough to take care of multiple
> >function definitions. Next time you're about to write "static inline"
> >in a header file, seriously consider doing "inline" instead.

> Depends on the language. I find it easier to just think about the
> llvm linkage :-). This testcase gives the mapping:

> // c99:   available_externally
> // gnu89: default
> // c++:   linkonce_odr
> inline void foo1(void) {
> }

> // c99:   default
> // gnu89: available_externally
> // c++:   linkonce_odr
> extern inline void foo2(void) {
> }

> // c99:   internal
> // gnu89: internal
> // c++:   internal
> static inline void foo3(void) {
> }

> void bar(void) {
>   foo1();
>   foo2();
>   foo3();
> }

> We are stuck with having gnu89 inline for C on linux until we
> upgrade glibc.