On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote: > "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > first, there appear to be three possible ways of specifying an > > inline routine in the kernel source: > > > > $ grep -r "static inline " . > > $ grep -r "static __inline__ " . > > $ grep -r "static __inline " . > > > > i vaguely recall that this has something to do with a distinction > > between C99 inline and gcc inline > > No, it doesn't (there is no C99 compatible inline in gcc before > 4.3). It has to do with the fact that inline is not a keyword in > C89, so you need to use a different spelling when you want to stay > compatible with strict C89.
ok, so based on that and a bit more surfing, i see that either "__inline" or "__inline__" are acceptable variants in gcc, and there is no distinction between them, is that right? but in terms of strict C89 compatibility, it would seem to be a bit late for that given: $ grep -r "static inline " . no? rday - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/