[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: libc build failure

From: Igor Khavkine
Subject: Re: libc build failure
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:52:32 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.20i

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 03:37:32PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I can explain that if and only if you compiled libc without optimization.
> The various `extern inline' functions are supposed to have real-function
> versions defined for unoptimized callers.  But __hurd_fail was missing.
> I've just now fixed that in libc.  For __thread_stack_pointer, there is
> no such real-function definition.  I am inclined to just make that one a 
> macro.

It seems to me that if using gcc and replacing `extern inline' with
`static inline' this problem would go away. The gcc docs say that
these functions will be inline, but there will be a normally compiled
version as well if there is need (for example the function's pointer
was used somewhere). There are also questions about C99 and future
standards compatibility where `static inline' seems to be favored.

I've raised the `extern inline' vs `static inline' question on the
glibc mailing list before. But no-one seemed interested in discussing it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]