From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar  8 07:09:25 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A476106564A
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun,  8 Mar 2009 07:09:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (ZIM.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.101])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FB68FC14
	for <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun,  8 Mar 2009 07:09:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2879O8d018478;
	Sun, 8 Mar 2009 03:09:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from das@localhost)
	by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.3/8.14.2/Submit) id n2879OdP018477;
	Sun, 8 Mar 2009 03:09:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 03:09:24 -0400
From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Sam Leffler <sam@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <20090308070924.GA39236@zim.MIT.EDU>
Mail-Followup-To: Sam Leffler <sam@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <20090307103138.GA34456@zim.MIT.EDU> <49B2B139.6010104@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49B2B139.6010104@freebsd.org>
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: C99 inlines
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 07:09:25 -0000

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009, Sam Leffler wrote:
> David Schultz wrote:
> >I'd like the gcc in our tree to use the C99 semantics instead of GNU
> >semantics for inline functions in C99 and GNU99 mode. The following
> >patch implements this behavior.  It is based on a snapshot of the gcc
> >4.3 branch from March 2007, prior to the GPLv3 switch.
> >  
> 
> Why?  I can imagine it improving portability to other toolchains like 
> LLVM, ICC, etc.
> 
> I'm not opposed but seems like you should be clear.

My main motivation is that currently there's no easy way to use
non-static inline functions that works with both gcc and other
compilers. Furthermore, even GNU wants to move to using the C99
semantics by default. Once that happens, continuing to be
dependent upon the old GNU inline semantics is likely to cause
porting headaches.