On 20.06.2023 14:10, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > + * - static function is used in an inline function with external linkage > + - ARM64, X86_64 > + - Non-documented GCC extension. An inline function with external linkage > + can be inlined everywhere. If that calls a static functions, which is > + not available everywhere, it is a constraint violation according to > + C99 6.7.4p3: "An inline definition of a function with external linkage > + shall not contain a definition of a modifiable object with static > + storage duration, and shall not contain a reference to an identifier > + with internal linkage." A standard-compliant C compiler ought > + to diagnose all constraint violations: when it does not, as is the > + case for GCC, the behavior is implicitly undefined.
With _spin_lock_cb() taken care of, do we have any left? Or else can this be dropped? Jan
