On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:32 AM Steve Kargl < [email protected]> wrote:
> In looking at lib/msun/math_private, one finds > > static __inline float complex > static __inline double complex > static __inline long double complex > static inline double > static inline float > static inline long double > static __inline int > static __inline int > static __inline int > static inline int32_t > static inline int32_t > > style(9) seems to not contain any preference with respect > to __inline versus inline. As a matter of consistency, > I would like to use whatever is the preferred keyword. > So, which should be used. > We generally have static __inline, though the reasons for that are historical. We originally did it to support building FreeBSD with a K&R compiler. Now, we've narrowed the scope of K&R support so we only really require it for public files since we support K&R compilers that are like how gcc implemented this (which basically is to have ansi keywords in the identifier space). In that environment, __inline is an extension. In C code, this is just a compiler extension meaning the same thing as inline. For C++ mode, we redefine __inline to inline. And we have some vestigial support for doing the same for the C compiler that doesn't support __inline. However, I did a bit of a survey just now, and more recently we've given up on that and just use a raw inline by and large. With __inline being a legacy item. In this context, though, math_private.h isn't public, so I'd just use inline. It's ancient enough that the old-school considerations mandated __inline (not least because bde favored building with such compilers). Now, I don't think it matters anymore, and we should just use the standard way of doing it. Warner
