"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about ditching the _EXTERN_INLINE macros and just use "extern > __inline" directly? I don't see a reason why we should bother with a > non-gcc compilers...
The _EXTERN_INLINE macros aren't there to protect against non-gcc; they are there so that we can compile a version of the function that will be a non-inline regular function. This is important for three reasons: 1) Users cannot be assumed to be always using C; we should support users who want to call out to the library from other languages or other language processors, not just old broken C compilers; 2) Users must be allowed to do things like take the address of the library functions which require an external version to exist; 3) GCC does not promise to inline every call to a function declared inline, but is allowed to generate a regular call if that looks best. Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
