Re: [discuss] [2.6 patch] include/asm-x86_64 "extern inline" -> "static inline"

Andi Kleen wrote: > I don't think the functionality of having single copies in case > an out of line version was needed was ever required by the Linux kernel. But shouldn't the compiler that compiles Linux be C99 compliant? > extern inline was used in the kernel a long time ago as a "poor man's

Re: [discuss] [2.6 patch] include/asm-x86_64 "extern inline" -> "static inline"

Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:00:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >>It isn't the same, but "static inline" is the correct variant. >> >>"extern inline __attribute__((always_inline))" (which is what >>"extern inline" is expanded to) doesn't make sense. > > > It does make

Re: [discuss] [2.6 patch] include/asm-x86_64 extern inline - static inline

Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:00:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: It isn't the same, but static inline is the correct variant. extern inline __attribute__((always_inline)) (which is what extern inline is expanded to) doesn't make sense. It does make sense and is different

Re: [discuss] [2.6 patch] include/asm-x86_64 extern inline - static inline

Andi Kleen wrote: I don't think the functionality of having single copies in case an out of line version was needed was ever required by the Linux kernel. But shouldn't the compiler that compiles Linux be C99 compliant? extern inline was used in the kernel a long time ago as a poor man's