[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:45:34 -0700
From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: [PATCH/RFC] inline cleanup/C89 support
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:53:16 +0200
Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote:
> * Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2012-08-23 22:34:25 -0400]:
..
> > #if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L
> > #define __inline inline
> > #define __restrict restrict
> > #endif
> >
> > added near the top of headers that need to use inline and/or
> > restrict.
(As previously stated, it appears-per a grep of glibc-that restrict is
not needed in these headers.)
This patch is updated for C++:
#if __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L || defined(__cplusplus)
#define __inline inline
#endif
> this won't work with c++, nor old strict c compilers
> without __inline and __restrict and can break various
> c parsing tools (ctags, swig, various lints, ..)
1. Do any of these "old strict c compilers" exist on Linux? Are any of
them worth supporting?
The Linux compilers I'm aware of are all nominally C99 capable (pcc,
tcc, gcc, clang, llvm-gcc, icc, OpenWatcom...), support __inline
(gcc-compatibles), or are hopelessly incomplete/outdated and buggy
(TenDRA, dev86 bcc). The latter ones probably wouldn't work properly
with musl, period.
2. Have you tested those C parsing tools? Have they been updated to
support C99?
3. Would OpenWatcom + musl be usable? Last I knew, OpenWatcom wasn't
compatible with the standard Linux ABI, and ISTR it had to use its own
libc.
If it is a realistic combination (can produce a working hello world),
then it *might* be worth supporting.
Isaac Dunham
View attachment "inline.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (13469 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
