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@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, uint32_t type) { /* instanceof for props.. handles extended type vs original types: */
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@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
-Emil
Hi Emil,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov@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@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.
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.
-Dan
-Emil
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@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@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 :)
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 ?
It should. I can't be 100% sure as there was just recently a new compiler release, but I would also suspect if this support was broken or dropped, then lots of stuff would break.
Cheers!
---- Randy
On 26/03/15 16:57, randyf@sibernet.com wrote: [...]
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 ?
It should. I can't be 100% sure as there was just recently a new compiler release, but I would also suspect if this support was broken or dropped, then lots of stuff would break.
Thanks for the information Randy.
Daniel Based Randy's input we can go with the original solution :-) Will leave the patch around for a week or so, for others to comment, before pushing it. If someone else beats me to it, feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov@gmail.com
Cheers, Emil
On 25 March 2015 at 01:01, Daniel Kurtz djkurtz@chromium.org 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.
Pushed to master. Thanks !
-Emil
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Kurtz -
Emil Velikov -
randyf＠sibernet.com