On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 12:52:03AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 09:24:17AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > --- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/accel/mach64/mach64im.c.orig Wed Sep
> > 15 17:01:53 1999
> > +++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/accel/mach64/mach64im.c Wed Sep 15
> > 17:03:55 1999
> > @@ -76,11 +76,12 @@
> > unsigned int integer;
> > unsigned char bytes[4];
> > };
> > -
> > +/* Also defined in regmach64.h ...
> > static __inline__ void regwbe(volatile unsigned long regindex, unsigned
> > long regdata)
> > {
> > *(unsigned long *)(mach64MemReg + regindex) = regdata;
> > }
> > +*/
> >
> > static __inline__ unsigned int bit_reverse32(unsigned int bits)
> > {
>
> I don't see the point of the above, regwbe is declared static anyway.
Get rid of the one in mach64im.c, but make the one in regmach64.h non-static
and also
usable when __sparc__ is defined.
> I will apply this one as well.
>
> Can someone tell me the whys and wherefores of "inline" versus
> "__inline__"? The New Testament is silent on the subject. Is it a GNU
> thing?
On SPARC, only __inline__ seems to be understood. I'm assuming the "inline"
alone
is probably supposed to be defined somewhere to what the compiler needs:
#define inline __inline__
Not sure why it works in some places, but not others.
Ben
