conversion of the __inline__ and inline pragmas to RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE?

Joel Sherrill joel.sherrill at
Wed Nov 9 14:42:47 UTC 2011

On 11/09/2011 08:20 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius<ralf.corsepius at>  wrote:
>> On 11/09/2011 09:49 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On 11/04/2011 09:15 PM, Cudmore, Alan P. (GSFC-5820) wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Is there an effort to convert the __inline__ and inline compiler
>>>> pragmas into the RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE macro?
>>>> I noticed that there is still a mixture of __inline__, inline, and
>>>> RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE in 4.10.1.
>>> I would replace all __inline__ and RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE with inline. ISO
>>> C 99 is now 12 years old.
>> I would replace all inline and RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE with __inline__ because
>> the rtems toolchain is _far_ from being c99 compliant.
> It sounds like Alan's requirements are to not use __inline__, unless I
> misunderstood. So every inline should be RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE so that
> inlining is a switch that can be turned off.

We are not always going to be tied to gcc so anything that makes
it harder to port to a non-GNU compilers is not a good thing.  Leaving
macros like RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE in place was done to allow
use of different compilers.  When added, we could still be compiled
with non-GNU compilers.

We already have bsp_specs which need to go away.  They
are strictly gcc-isms and non-standard.

I am in the experimentation and investigation stage of compiling
RTEMS with non-gcc compilers. Please do not tie us to gcc
any tighter than we already are.

>> The same consideration applies to "asm".
>> Ralf
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-users mailing list
>> rtems-users at
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at

Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&  Development
joel.sherrill at        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
    Support Available             (256) 722-9985

More information about the users mailing list