Michael Matz wrote:
As "extern inline" is a GNU extension I don't understand this remark.
Sort of.
C99 has the equivalent construct, but spell it differently:
inline foo(int bar) {
...
}
extern foo(int bar);
There is no "static inline" in C99 either; it's just "inline".
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 22:55, Terrence Miller wrote:
> 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?
At
Hi,
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Terrence Miller wrote:
> 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?
As "extern
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
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:23:50 +0200
> 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.
Alpha does, exactly for the kind of case this gcc inlining feature was
designed
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.
extern inline was used in the kernel a long time ago as a "poor man's
-Winline". Basically the intention was to get an linker error
if the inlining didn't
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
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
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.
extern inline was used in the kernel a long time ago as a poor man's
-Winline. Basically the intention was to get an linker error
if the inlining didn't
From: Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 22:23:50 +0200
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.
Alpha does, exactly for the kind of case this gcc inlining feature was
designed for.
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
Hi,
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Terrence Miller wrote:
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?
As extern inline is
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 22:55, Terrence Miller wrote:
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?
At least
Michael Matz wrote:
As extern inline is a GNU extension I don't understand this remark.
Sort of.
C99 has the equivalent construct, but spell it differently:
inline foo(int bar) {
...
}
extern foo(int bar);
There is no static inline in C99 either; it's just inline.
-hpa
-
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:47:40PM -0400, 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
On Friday 02 September 2005 22:31, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> "extern inline" doesn't make much sense.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks applied (with a better description)
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:47:40PM -0400, 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
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 from
static
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:52:47AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > "extern inline" doesn't make much sense.
>
> It does. It's a GCC extension which says "never ever emit an out-of-line
> version of this function, not even if its address is
Hi,
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> "extern inline" doesn't make much sense.
It does. It's a GCC extension which says "never ever emit an out-of-line
version of this function, not even if its address is taken", i.e. it's
implicitely assumed, that if there is a need for such
Hi,
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
extern inline doesn't make much sense.
It does. It's a GCC extension which says never ever emit an out-of-line
version of this function, not even if its address is taken, i.e. it's
implicitely assumed, that if there is a need for such out-of-line
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:52:47AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
extern inline doesn't make much sense.
It does. It's a GCC extension which says never ever emit an out-of-line
version of this function, not even if its address is taken, i.e. it's
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 from
static inline
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:47:40PM -0400, 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
On Friday 02 September 2005 22:31, Adrian Bunk wrote:
extern inline doesn't make much sense.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks applied (with a better description)
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:47:40PM -0400, 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.
26 matches
Mail list logo
