[PATCH] xf86drmMode.h: inline -> __inline for use with gcc -std=c89 -pedantic

[Emil Velikov]

On 26/03/15 15:38, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> Hi Emil,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>> On 25/03/15 01:01, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, there are some users of libdrm installed headers that like
>>> to be built with -std=c89 -pedantic, which does not like "inline".
>>>
>>> However, __inline works.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz at chromium.org>
>>
>>> ---
>>>  xf86drmMode.h | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xf86drmMode.h b/xf86drmMode.h
>>> index 856a6bb..2d30184 100644
>>> --- a/xf86drmMode.h
>>> +++ b/xf86drmMode.h
>>> @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ typedef struct _drmModeProperty {
>>>       uint32_t *blob_ids; /* store the blob IDs */
>>>  } drmModePropertyRes, *drmModePropertyPtr;
>>>
>>> -static inline int drm_property_type_is(drmModePropertyPtr property,
>>> +static __inline int drm_property_type_is(drmModePropertyPtr property,
>>
>> Can you share the name of those users ?
>>
>> From a quick look clang and gcc are ok with this change, although some
>> versions of the Sun compiler are not. Considering that most programs try
>> to use c99 and later, might I suggest that you add a trivial wrapper in
>> your program ? Something along the lines of
>>
>> #ifndef inline
>> #define inline __inline
>> #endif
> 
> It isn't a program, its a third party EGL/GLES driver, so, no I can't
> really do this easily.
> 
I see... due to various agreements you're not allowed to make any
changes. Be that to the code or the build (-Dinline...).

> Alternatively can we:
>  (1) move the wrapper to xf86drmMode.h itself, or
>  (2) move this inline helper function out of xf86drmMode.h and into
> the two libdrm tests that use it (or a shared test helper .h [0])
>  (3) remove the inline and make drm_property_type_is a non-inline
> function in xf86drmMode.c
> 
> [0] I think Thierry already has a patch set that rearranges the tests
> to use some shared headers.  Perhaps this will work well once his set
> lands.
> 
Fwiw I would opt for 1 or 3 (leaning towards 1), as 2 might lead to:
 - Everyone coming up with their own "helper", or
 - Ignoring DRM_MODE_PROP_EXTENDED_TYPE checking
drmModePropertyPtr::flags, thus causing all sorts of chaos.


Randy, Niveditha, Stuart,

Does the compiler(s) used to build libdrm and friends support __inline ?

Thanks,
Emil

P.S. [0] Seems to be missing but I do recall the series :)