On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Peter Maydell wrote: > > Hmm, so perhaps my idea for a later improvement: > > > >> Eventually we might want to move the new inline functions into a > >> separate header to be included from softfloat.h instead of softfloat.c, > >> but let's make changes one step at a time. > > > > will actually have to be made right away. I suspect GCC is more liberal > > here due to its convoluted extern/static/inline semantics history. > > Sigh... > > I would suggest just using "static inline", as we do elsewhere > for little utility functions.
Yes, that's exactly what they'd have to be moved into a separate header for. Maciej
