Hi,
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Terrence Miller wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I don't think the functionality of having single copies in case
> > an out of line version was needed was ever required by the Linux kernel.
>
> But shouldn't the compiler that compiles Linux be C99 compliant?
As "extern inline" is a GNU extension I don't understand this remark.
The notion of "function marked as inline but in fact wasn't inlined"
simply isn't covered by any C(++) standard, and isn't detectable by any
C99 compliant program. Hence a compiler understanding this extension
could still be c99 compliant (right now I don't know if "extern inline"
would be a invalid c99, if it is, then see below).
Perhaps you meant "shouldn't linux be compilable by a compiler which only
is C99 compliant". If you meant this, then I would say no ;-) Think
e.g. inline asms, which a purely (in the sense of providing nothing more)
C99 compiler couldn't provide. OTOH gcc with the right options _is_
mostly c99 compliant, so in this sense linux is already compilable by a
c99 compliant compiler.
Ciao,
Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |