Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:40 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
cc: Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: can someone explain "inline" once and for all?
In-Reply-To: <jefya7jfxi.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701190846480.25561@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701190645400.24224@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6>
 <jefya7jfxi.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1228
Lines: 36

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:

> "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> 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 a distinction
> > between C99 inline and gcc inline
>
> No, it doesn't (there is no C99 compatible inline in gcc before
> 4.3).  It has to do with the fact that inline is not a keyword in
> C89, so you need to use a different spelling when you want to stay
> compatible with strict C89.

ok, so based on that and a bit more surfing, i see that either
"__inline" or "__inline__" are acceptable variants in gcc, and there
is no distinction between them, is that right?

but in terms of strict C89 compatibility, it would seem to be a bit
late for that given:

  $ grep -r "static inline " .

no?

rday
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/