Hi Kalle,
Please let know if the modified patch is acceptable.
Regards
Muktha
Muktha Narayan wrote:
Hi,
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
"Mark A. Carlson" <mark.carl...@sun.com> writes:
+#if defined (__SUNPRO_C)
+static inline void
+#else
inline void
+#endif
load_frames(struct session *ses, struct document_view *doc_view)
This looks like <http://bugzilla.elinks.cz/show_bug.cgi?id=1047>.
That bug was reported against ELinks 0.12pre1 though.
I haven't heard about such problems with 0.11.5 before.
It looks like 0.10.6 has the same bug; can you confirm?
Yes, elinks-0.10.6 has the same bug (in session.c and conv.c).
Because ELinks is violating a C99 requirement, rather than
something specific to Sun, I don't think it's right to make an
exception for the Sun compiler. Instead, we should make the
functions not inline and measure how that affects the speed.
If it hurts too much, then define e.g. static inline int
inline_elinks_ulongcat() and make both int elinks_ulongcat()
and int elinks_longcat() call that. GCC should generate from
that approximately the same code as from the current sources.
Attached is the modified patch incorporating the above comments.
Please confirm if the patch is acceptable.
Regards
Muktha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
elinks-dev mailing list
elinks-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev
_______________________________________________
elinks-dev mailing list
elinks-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev
