Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:36:12 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: can someone explain "inline" once and for all? |
| |
On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:15:03PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >... > That's still a long way ahead (the 4.3 development cycle has just > started), but it wouldn't hurt to start fixing incompatibilities > sooner rather than later, and coming up with a clean and uniform set > of inline macros that express intended meaning for the kernel to use.
I had already removed most of the "extern inline"s in the kernel since they give warnings with -Wmissing-prototypes (which I'd like to enable long-term in the kernel since it helps discovering a class of nasty runtime errors).
As far as I can see, all we need is "static inline" with the semantics "force inlining" for functions in header files and perhaps a handful of functions in C files (if any).
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |