Mark Wielaard writes: > > On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 10:27, Andrew Haley wrote: > > I guess as long as we're stuck with C90 we can't use inline. > > Am I right in thinking that GNU Classpath targets C90? > > Yes. More accurately would probably be that we try to support platforms > that still depend on gcc-2.95. This is not that uncommon.
Really? Not uncommon that platforms still depend on 2.95? Are these platforms that have been orphande due to lack of maintainers, or some other reason? > And it is what the GNU Coding Standards recommend: > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_10.html > > We are currently compiling our C code with: > dnl We want ISO C90 pedantic ansi, but with longlong (jlong) support > dnl and modern POSIX and BSD C library functions/prototypes. > AM_CFLAGS='-ansi -pedantic -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-prototypes > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wall -Wno-long-long -D_BSD_SOURCE ' > > I didn't know that would prevent inlining in general. > But even if it does then we are probably better of with a little slower > code that is easier to debug. GNU Classpath is still very much in rapid > prototyping mode and we should be careful about premature optimization. Right. All we have to do to support C90 is `#define inline' appropriately. > I think this is the thing that most people found at this last year. That > the use of C macros makes debugging very difficult. There are other > inconveniences that come from the use the a extra layer of indirection, > but I believe we can work around most of them as long as we get rid of C > #defines in so many places or make it possible to more easily debug code > that uses them. Good. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
