conversion of the __inline__ and inline pragmas to RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE?

[Cudmore, Alan P. (GSFC-5820)]

My code needs to have the __inline__ pragma. The inline will not compiler with the switches that I am required to use.
Our coding standard dictates:
     -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -pedantic -ansi -Werror

My preference is to replace __inline__ and inline with RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE. 
This would allow non-gnu compilers and adoption to newer standards without having to dig through the files again.

Alan

On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:02 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2011 08:20 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius<ralf.corsepius at rtems.org>
>>>  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.
>> 
> So should we be converting all inline and __inline__ to
> RTEMS_INLINE_ROUTINE and not introducing new inline or __inline__?
> 
>>>> The same consideration applies to "asm".
>>>> 
>>>> Ralf
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtems-users mailing list
>>>> rtems-users at rtems.org
>>>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtems-users mailing list
>>> rtems-users at rtems.org
>>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&  Development
>> joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
>> Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
>>   Support Available             (256) 722-9985
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users