Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 21:55:41 +1100 From: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> To: Sam Leffler <sam@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: C99 inlines Message-ID: <20090309105541.GA2464@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20090308070924.GA39236@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <20090307103138.GA34456@zim.MIT.EDU> <49B2B139.6010104@freebsd.org> <20090308070924.GA39236@zim.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? > 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. Well, we don't want to be depending on non-standard semantics, if we can help it. Sure. Are we? Where? Cheers, -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090309105541.GA2464>