Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:05:56 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: __attribute__((always_inline)) fiasco |
| |
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 12:26:18PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: >>> #define INLINE static inline // an oxymoron >>> #define INLINE extern inline // an oxymoron
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:50:26AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> The // apart from being a C++ ism (screw C99; it's still non-idiomatic) >> will cause spurious ignorance of the remainder of the line, which is >> often very important. e.g. >> static INLINE int lock_need_resched(spinlock_t *lock) >> { >> ...
On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 03:29:25AM +0200, Tonnerre wrote: > Mmm, shouldn't the comments be filtered *before* the definition is set > in place? Just wondering...
I've already heard more about this than I ever cared to. I'll continue to stick to saner subsets of C and refuse to use things such as how the preprocessor committing incest with the compiler proper (no, I don't need it explained to me, it's trivial) allows crappy code to be written. Don't lecture me; there's nothing to explain and I don't want to hear it.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |