Vitaliy Margolen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I recall the problem was with the way InterlockedExchangePointer()
> and InterlockedCompareExchangePointer() are defined. I'm guessing
> compiler/linker can't optimize this away, if they are not used. And
> lots of programs in tools/ do include the
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Zephiris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Specifically, this appears to conflict with, say, when
InterlockedExchange is actually defined later in the source file. Even
if 'extern inline' is replaced by 'static inline', that's a
problem. For that particular case, for instanc
Zephiris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Specifically, this appears to conflict with, say, when
> InterlockedExchange is actually defined later in the source file. Even
> if 'extern inline' is replaced by 'static inline', that's a
> problem. For that particular case, for instance, I tried to work
>
I haven't seen this addressed and couldn't get an answer out of anyone
on IRC.
GCC defines 'extern inline' very differently from other compilers and C99.
inline isn't actually guaranteed to inline (obviously), but 'extern
inline' on GCC never defines a global function. References to the
functio
