On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:15:03PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>...
> That's still a long way ahead (the 4.3 development cycle has just
> started), but it wouldn't hurt to start fixing incompatibilities
> sooner rather than later, and coming up with a clean and uniform set
> of inline macros
On Jan 19, 2007, "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> first, there appear to be three possible ways of specifying an
> inline routine in the kernel source:
inline, __inline and __inline__ are equivalent as far as GCC is
concerned, as you've already figured out.
> i vaguely recall
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> With the current implementation in the kernel (and considering that
> CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING was implemented in a way that it never had
> any effect), __always_inline and inline are currently equivalent.
yes, that option was implemented in a half-assed
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:01:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
> > >routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > but in terms of strict C89 compatibility, it would seem to be a bit
> > late for that given:
> >
> > $ grep -r "static inline " .
> >
> > no?
>
> The kernel does not use strict C89, it uses GNUC89.
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:01:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
> >routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to the
> >CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
>
"Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> but in terms of strict C89 compatibility, it would seem to be a bit
> late for that given:
>
> $ grep -r "static inline " .
>
> no?
The kernel does not use strict C89, it uses GNUC89.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
"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
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
> > routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to the
> > CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
>
> AFAIK
On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to the
CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
AFAIK __always_inline is the only reliable way to force inlining where
apologies if this is an inappropriately trivial question but this
has been bugging me for a while. what is the deal with "inline"?
first, there appear to be three possible ways of specifying an
inline routine in the kernel source:
$ grep -r "static inline " .
$ grep -r "static
apologies if this is an inappropriately trivial question but this
has been bugging me for a while. what is the deal with inline?
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__ .
On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to the
CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
AFAIK __always_inline is the only reliable way to force inlining where
it
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to the
CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
AFAIK __always_inline is
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
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 .
Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but in terms of strict C89 compatibility, it would seem to be a bit
late for that given:
$ grep -r static inline .
no?
The kernel does not use strict C89, it uses GNUC89.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:01:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to the
CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
AFAIK
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but in terms of strict C89 compatibility, it would seem to be a bit
late for that given:
$ grep -r static inline .
no?
The kernel does not use strict C89, it uses GNUC89.
in that case, why
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:01:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
routines in the kernel? and maybe this can be added to the
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
With the current implementation in the kernel (and considering that
CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING was implemented in a way that it never had
any effect), __always_inline and inline are currently equivalent.
yes, that option was implemented in a half-assed sort
On Jan 19, 2007, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
first, there appear to be three possible ways of specifying an
inline routine in the kernel source:
inline, __inline and __inline__ are equivalent as far as GCC is
concerned, as you've already figured out.
i vaguely recall that
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:15:03PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
...
That's still a long way ahead (the 4.3 development cycle has just
started), but it wouldn't hurt to start fixing incompatibilities
sooner rather than later, and coming up with a clean and uniform set
of inline macros that
24 matches
Mail list logo
