Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 11:06:44 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a question about style(9) and inline Message-ID: <aJzUNJhFb-e3Dacl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqM22c1h-wvGJAGmUWi8V0ZR1=b0aO_H_i%2BZkBoF60cnw@mail.gmail.com> References: <aJzL8JUop1vDFPNJ@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CANCZdfqM22c1h-wvGJAGmUWi8V0ZR1=b0aO_H_i%2BZkBoF60cnw@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:43:44AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:32 AM 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. > > > > We generally have static __inline, though the reasons for that are > historical. We originally did it to support building FreeBSD with a K&R > compiler. Now, we've narrowed the scope of K&R support so we only really > require it for public files since we support K&R compilers that are like > how gcc implemented this (which basically is to have ansi keywords in the > identifier space). In that environment, __inline is an extension. In C > code, this is just a compiler extension meaning the same thing as inline. > For C++ mode, we redefine __inline to inline. And we have some vestigial > support for doing the same for the C compiler that doesn't support __inline. > > However, I did a bit of a survey just now, and more recently we've given up > on that and just use a raw inline by and large. With __inline being a > legacy item. > > In this context, though, math_private.h isn't public, so I'd just use > inline. It's ancient enough that the old-school considerations mandated > __inline (not least because bde favored building with such compilers). Now, > I don't think it matters anymore, and we should just use the standard way > of doing it. Thanks for the input. inline is in n869.pdf (working draft of C99) with 01/18/99 date. It is likely safe to assume that today C compilers used to compile FreeBSD support inline. I'll get to submitting a patch to cleanup __inline in math_private.h (eventually). -- Stevehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aJzUNJhFb-e3Dacl>