Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 13:10:22 -0400 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: svn commit: r232351 - in head/sys: kern sys ufs/ffs ufs/ufs Message-ID: <20120407171022.GB2737@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <0F23DDD1-1CAC-4E72-A3CB-56B81F0C0790@FreeBSD.org> References: <201203011845.q21IjQqt091350@svn.freebsd.org> <20120302125334.GH75778@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <0F23DDD1-1CAC-4E72-A3CB-56B81F0C0790@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012, David Chisnall wrote: > On 2 Mar 2012, at 12:53, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > This part of the change breaks KBI. I suggest that for merge to stable/9 > > you would leave the bread and breadn as functions. > > Can we not do this for the general case? Provide them as inline > extern functions in the header, and implement them elsewhere, so > the compiler will inline them in recompiled code but not break > code that isn't? The biggest hinderance to using extern inline is that gcc and C99 disagree about what it means, unless you use a reasonably recent compiler in C99 mode. I first tried to use extern inline in the tree several years after I backported gcc's C99 inline support, and it still turned out to be a headache. Of course, the kernel is easier because we can insist on a recent compiler in C99 mode, but perhaps there's still some lingering confusion. I've been meaning to write up a wiki page about how to use the different types of inlines, and when they'd be appropriate...but I have very limited time for the next few months.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120407171022.GB2737>