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(pcc, tcc, gcc, clang, llvm-gcc, icc, OpenWatcom...), support __inline (gcc-compatibles), or are hopelessly incomplete/outdated and buggy (TenDRA, dev86 bcc).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.