Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 05 Aug 2004 17:39:07 -0700 | From | Tim Bird <> | Subject | Is extern inline -> static inline OK? |
| |
Pardon my ignorance...
Under what conditions is it NOT OK to convert "extern inline" to "static inline"?
Linus once wrote: > - "static inline" means "we have to have this function, if you use it > but don't inline it, then make a static version of it in this > compilation unit" > > - "extern inline" means "I actually _have_ an extern for this function, > but if you want to inline it, here's the inline-version" > > ... we should just convert > all current users of "extern inline" to "static inline".
But Richard Henderson rejected (in 2002) the following patch (excerpt):
-#define __EXTERN_INLINE extern inline +#define __EXTERN_INLINE static inline
presumably because the exact semantics of extern inline were required. I can only find __EXTERN_INLINE in the alpha architecture. Is the requirement to use 'extern' rather than 'static' unique to alpha?
Thanks for any illumination on this.
============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Co-Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics E-mail: tim.bird@am.sony.com ============================= - 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/
| |