From: Kean Johnston <jkj@sco.com>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Guidance please: static or extern __inline__
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42E903E5.4040905@sco.com> (raw)
Hi everyone,
I've run into a little SNAFU with my porting work. In my
fixincludes changes I changed all forms in the header files
of (using stat as an example):
static int
stat(const char *__p, stat_t *__s)
{
return _xstat(_STAT_VER, __p, __s);
}
to:
extern int stat (const char *__p, stat_t *__s);
extern __inline__ int
stat(const char *__p, stat_t *__s)
{
return _xstat(_STAT_VER, __p, __s);
}
From reading teh docs it seems like 'extern __inline__' was
the way to go for this type of header file trickery. However,
it caused a problem bootstrapping the compiler, becuase the
first stage doesn't have -O, so any calls to stat() actually
go to the library routine called stat(), which is an old,
deprecated stat that can't deal with, say, 32-bit inodes or
uid_t's etc, and various programs like fixincludes then
fail to stat files.
If things are compiled with -O, everything works fine,
becuase _xstat, which is what I really want, is called. If
I change the extern __inline__ to static __inline__, it
works correctly, even without optimization.
However, I *think* I like the semantics of 'extern inline'
better: use the inline version for the most part but if,
for example, you take the address of the function, use the
actual symbol stat(). But I see that most other fixincs
use static inline.
So my question is in two parts I guess:
a) Which is the better thing to use in a header file for
this type of function mapping? static or extern inline?
b) If its extern inline, is there a way to force the inline
expansion even when not using -O (and without command
line options). I wouldn't want users to get nasty
surprises if they just used 'gcc -o foo foo.c'.
Any advice and guidance greatly appreciated.
Kean
next reply other threads:[~2005-07-28 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-28 16:12 Kean Johnston [this message]
2005-07-28 16:37 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-28 17:49 ` Kean Johnston
2005-07-28 17:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-07-28 18:32 ` Kean Johnston
2005-07-28 18:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-07-28 19:05 ` Mike Stump
2005-07-28 19:43 ` Kean Johnston
2005-07-28 20:15 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2005-07-28 20:33 ` Kean Johnston
2005-07-28 20:54 ` Mike Stump
2005-07-29 20:23 ` Kean Johnston
2005-07-29 21:18 ` Mike Stump
2005-07-29 22:03 ` Kean Johnston
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42E903E5.4040905@sco.com \
--to=jkj@sco.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).