On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 02:47:45AM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > On 25.12.2019 02:45, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > > 1. or1k + riscv define both __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast(). > > > > Is there a point? Unless it is some ABI nit, it looks like a bug to me? > > > > 2. Harmonize namespacing __lwp_getprivate_fast() and __lwp_gettcb_fast(). > > > > This is known issue to me abd it bites me from time to time, working for > > one CPU and breaking on other as namespacing is inconsistent are different. > > > > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00210-x86-getprivate.txt > > > > Wrong patch. The correct one is: > > http://netbsd.org/~kamil/patch-00211-getprivate-fast.txt
There is little reason to use __BEGIN_DECLS/__END_DECLS for static inline functions. Joerg
