[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:49:12 +0200
From: philomath <philomath868@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] inline cleanup/C89 support
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 12:51:26 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:45:34PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > 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
> > [...]
>
> Committed, with minor changes.
>
> Rich
Sorry for asking after the fact, but why the whole code-duplication? why not
have an internal header (like glibc's cdefs.h) for these kind of things (inline,
restrict, noreturn, etc) and include it where needed?
Thanks.
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.
