29 Jun
2018
29 Jun
'18
10:25 a.m.
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,
imho.
Best regards,
Marcus
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
in
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
described?
with best regards,
Pinky.
* Steve Markgraf <steve(a)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