[PATCH] Fix inline functions to use 'static inline'
Müller, Marcus (CEL)
mueller at kit.edu
Fri Jun 29 08:25:01 UTC 2018
Hi David, Pinky, Steve and all,
I'd agree with "uh, I need to know where this goes wrong please, I'm
scared". I'd also agree, an inlined function should probably have
compilation unit scope, anyway, so `static` would be appropriate.
I've taken a look at the patched function declarations and would
recommend to just remove `min16` and `max16` alltogether (only used in
a comment, and frankly, not that great a function `(a<>b?a:b)`).
I'd really like to know the compile error! Maybe there's actually
something we can do – simply because this really *shouldn't* fail,
On Thu, 2018-06-28 at 20:50 +0200, Pinky wrote:
> Hi all,
> althought the argument about compiller is a bit strange the change is
> my opinion in right course. If the goal is to use those functions
> only in this
> one particular .c file and not elsewhere, the good practice is to
> limit scope by using static.
> Can You please let us know how to reproduce behaviour You have
> with best regards,
> * Steve Markgraf <steve at steve-m.de> [2018-06-28 20:29:34 +0200]:
> > Hi David,
> > On 28.06.2018 17:43, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > With just 'inline', if the compiler decides not to inline them,
> > > it isn't
> > > required to emit them at all. For some targets with -Os that is
> > > causing
> > > build failures.
> > "It isn't required to emit them at all" - What the heck, which
> > compiler
> > on earth does such horrible things?
> > I've taken at look at the C99 standard for the function specifier
> > 'inline' and there is nothing that would justify such behaviour.
> > Of course, if that's a bug with a specific compiler version we can
> > merge
> > that, but the explanation in the commit doesn't make any sense to
> > me.
> > Regards,
> > Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6582 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the osmocom-sdr