[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Ansification of include/linux/*.h

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Andi Kleen <>
    > (Tom Leete) writes:
    >> Hi,
    >> Here's a first patch. The only thing it does besides replacing "inline"
    >> with "__inline__" is to fill in the missing statements which set alight
    >> the "linux headers and C++" flamefest.
    >This looks useless. The moving out of ISO C namespace doesn't help, because

    It is for user-space developers who include headers for the ksyms
    prototypes. It works to permit them to use gcc -ansi and -pedantic if they
    wish. I recommend that for producing maintainable and portable code.

    $ info gcc;
    for reasons to use __inline__. I didn't invent that macro, you know. The
    majority of kernel headers used it to start with.

    >it would need to be reserved for C++ compatibility anyways.
    >Near all interesting (=optimizing) C compilers know about inline, and if
    >not it can be easily #define'd out. Also the next revision of the C
    >standard has inline.

    Who's going to put the revisions into gcc-2.7.2?

    >What they usually don't deal with is gcc's "extern inline", so
    >migrating from "extern inline" to "static inline". The reasoning behind

    Yes, I think that may need to be handled, perhaps by something like:

    #ifdef _GNUC_

    I'm open to suggestions on that.

    >the extern thing seems to be to let ld catch non inlined copies. A much
    >better way to archieve this IMHO is -Winline (if you can stand the few
    >warnings for the non-fixable cases - which should be few because with
    >extern inline they didn't even compile)
    >I think the kernel header ANSIfication is a doomed project though, because
    >how do you do a efficient spinlock without inline assembly (and don't say
    >now "move it out of line")? In 2.2+ you cannot do much without spinlocks.
    >In 2.0 the same applies e.g. to cli/sti

    Who said anything about altering kernel mechanisms for this?

    I think you haven't followed the discussion that produced these patches. I
    would have turned off the religious war too, if I hadn't got involved as an
    innocent agnostic.



    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.023 / U:29.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site