Subject: Re: current isn't building and I think it's
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/26/2005 22:29:28
YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com> writes:
>> Perhaps the right thing is to conditionalize a rename of inline in our
>> headers on __STRICT_ANSI__, which would be defined any time this was
>> an issue.
> no. the right way to check c99 is __STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L.
Not quite. All compilers NetBSD has been released with handle "inline"
naked, even if __STDC_VERSION__ is smaller than 199901L. "inline" was
in gcc since 1990 at least.
The issue is unique for compilation under NetBSD with -ansi -- if
__STRICT_ANSI__ is defined we have an issue.
We have a lot of gnuisms in our code base -- we wouldn't compile
without gcc anyway -- so I think __STRICT_ANSI__ is the better test.
> in any case, endian.h should use __inline.
endian.h isn't the only problem. There are other standard include
files that contain "inline". See stdio.h for example.
Either we say "C99", or we put in a hack, or we back out to "__inline"
for all include files that are mentioned in POSIX.
I think the most strictly correct thing is to use "__inline" for all
include files mentioned in POSIX. However, maybe the #ifdef hack I
mentioned to you in private mail would work. I'm not sure. I am
somewhat inclined to back out to "__inline" for POSIX include files
for now, but I want to think about it.