On 07/18/13 23:43, dw wrote: > >> I can confirm that with GCC 4.9. In cause of our headers, it always >> chooses inline version, which is good. > > That is the best possible outcome. For this particular situation. But > it's possible that's not always the case. > > What with normal implementations, inline implementations, dllimport > implementations, weak attribute, etc, I'm not sure I know which one > the compiler may pick for any given symbol. I'm hoping there's some > sort of precedence list. > >> Why don't you add WINBASEAPI to GCC version independent declaration > > You mean something more like this (attached)? > >> add version guard only to the part that currently checks >> __CRT__NO_INLINE to avoid duplication? > > I'm not sure we are looking at the same code. Since I'm using > __MINGW_INTRIN_INLINE (which is what is currently checked in), I don't > have a check for __CRT__NO_INLINE. In fact, I removed the check for > __MINGW_INTRIN_INLINE. If that's important, then intrin-impl.h needs > to be updated as well. > >> I'd hope for better fallback on older (well, all currently released) GCC >> versions, but I'm out of ideas now. > > Between the gcc bug and people copying prototypes locally, there was > only so much we could do.
I committed the patch with additional __MINGW_INTRIN_INLINE check so we can move on (to another problem on x64). I hope Kai is okay with it and will review it when he's back. Thanks, Jacek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
