Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 11:11:39 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a question about style(9) and inline Message-ID: <aJzVW5aGjtQN1RSP@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <BD04F41E-3D5C-4F48-B99A-8DD493ED0C45@FreeBSD.org> References: <aJzL8JUop1vDFPNJ@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <BD04F41E-3D5C-4F48-B99A-8DD493ED0C45@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 07:48:00PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > 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. cdefs.h was removed from all msun sources except x86/fenv.h (circa 2024). AFAICT, cdefs.h is not needed in x86/fenv.h. Following Warner's email, I'll use inline and clean up math_private.h. -- Stevehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aJzVW5aGjtQN1RSP>