From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar  9 13:58:20 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 C26541065676;
	Mon,  9 Mar 2009 13:58:20 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from stefan@fafoe.narf.at)
Received: from viefep15-int.chello.at (viefep15-int.chello.at [62.179.121.35])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEE18FC14;
	Mon,  9 Mar 2009 13:58:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from stefan@fafoe.narf.at)
Received: from edge01.upc.biz ([192.168.13.236]) by viefep12-int.chello.at
	(InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP
	id <20090309134105.YBOH12380.viefep12-int.chello.at@edge01.upc.biz>;
	Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:41:05 +0100
Received: from lizard.fafoe.narf.at ([213.47.85.26])
	by edge01.upc.biz with edge
	id R1h41b00F0a5KZh011h58D; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:41:05 +0100
X-SourceIP: 213.47.85.26
Received: by lizard.fafoe.narf.at (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 81D95BC24; Mon,  9 Mar 2009 14:40:42 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:40:42 +0100
From: Stefan Farfeleder <stefan@fafoe.narf.at>
To: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org>
Message-ID: <20090309134041.GA23152@lizard.fafoe.narf.at>
References: <20090307103138.GA34456@zim.MIT.EDU> <49B2B139.6010104@freebsd.org>
	<20090308070924.GA39236@zim.MIT.EDU>
	<20090309105541.GA2464@duncan.reilly.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090309105541.GA2464@duncan.reilly.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Sam Leffler <sam@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: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:58:21 -0000

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 09:55:41PM +1100, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 03:09:24AM -0400, David Schultz wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Please pardon my ignorance: what *is* non-static inline
> behaviour?  I've only ever used static inlines myself: they're
> the only sort that make sense (to me), in the world of standard
> C static compilation and linkage.  What happens elsewhen?  Does
> the compiler generate a "real" function with an exportable name
> that can be linked-to?  Why would you want to do that, when
> that's what perfectly ordinary functions do?  I can't imagine an
> extern inline meaning anything useful unless one can do
> LLVM-style link-time optimization.  Is that on the cards?

With static inline functions you end up with a copy in each object file
where the compiler decided to not inline at least one call, with an
inline function with external linkage all these copies are coalesced to
a single one.