Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:48:00 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a question about style(9) and inline Message-ID: <BD04F41E-3D5C-4F48-B99A-8DD493ED0C45@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <aJzL8JUop1vDFPNJ@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 13 Aug 2025, at 19:31, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > In looking at lib/msun/math_private, one finds > > static __inline float complex > static __inline double complex > static __inline long double complex > static inline double > static inline float > static inline long double > static __inline int > static __inline int > static __inline int > static inline int32_t > static inline int32_t > > style(9) seems to not contain any preference with respect > to __inline versus inline. As a matter of consistency, > I would like to use whatever is the preferred keyword. > So, which should be used? In <sys/cdefs.h>, __inline is defined such that the keyword is removed if the compiler doesn't support it. I doubt it is possible to compile FreeBSD which such a compiler, so the whole __inline define now seems only necessary for backwards compatibility's sake. Since plain inline is already used in libm, it does not really make sense to use __inline anymore, in my opinion. -Dimitryhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BD04F41E-3D5C-4F48-B99A-8DD493ED0C45>