Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #12591 > unrolled thread

inline

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  inline "Mark" <mark_cruzNOTFORSPAM@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 11:13 -0400
    Re: inline blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-03 09:14 -0700
      Re: inline "Mark" <mark_cruzNOTFORSPAM@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 15:20 -0400
        Re: inline blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-03 12:50 -0700
        Re: inline Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-03 20:10 +0000
        Re: inline Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-03 13:51 -0700

#12591 — inline

Hello

is it required to have 'inline' keywoard before type in a function 
definition/declaration? For example, what is correct:

inline int small_func(void)
{
    /* do something */
}

or

int inline small_func(void)
{
    /* do something */
}

Also - is the same true for functions having static definition?

Thanks.

Mark 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12596

"Mark" <mark_cruzNOTFORSPAM@hotmail.com> writes:

> is it required to have 'inline' keywoard before type in a function 
> definition/declaration? For example, what is correct:
>
> inline int small_func(void)
> {
>     /* do something */
> }
>
> or
>
> int inline small_func(void)
> {
>     /* do something */
> }

Both are correct but the former is customary.

> Also - is the same true for functions having static definition?

Same answer.
-- 
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa67f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12613

"Ben Pfaff" <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message 
news:87mxcdfair.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org...
>> is it required to have 'inline' keywoard before type in a function
>> definition/declaration? For example, what is correct:
>>
>> inline int small_func(void)
>> {
>>     /* do something */
>> }
>>
>> or
>>
>> int inline small_func(void)
>> {
>>     /* do something */
>> }
>
> Both are correct but the former is customary.
>
>> Also - is the same true for functions having static definition?

For the second case "gcc -std=c99 -pedantic -W -Wall" gives warning: 'inline' 
is not at beginning of declaration. Why does gcc care about the sequence if 
both representations are correct ?
Thanks.

Mark 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12616

"Mark" <mark_cruzNOTFORSPAM@hotmail.com> writes:

> For the second case "gcc -std=c99 -pedantic -W -Wall" gives
> warning: 'inline' is not at beginning of declaration. Why does
> gcc care about the sequence if both representations are correct
> ?

It's customary to put 'inline' at the beginning.  GCC is
suggesting that you might have made a mistake.  It's a warning,
not an error, so you can ignore it or turn it off if you prefer
to use an unusual ordering.
-- 
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa67f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12618

On 2011-11-03, Mark <mark_cruzNOTFORSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Ben Pfaff" <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message 
> news:87mxcdfair.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org...
>>> is it required to have 'inline' keywoard before type in a function
>>> definition/declaration? For example, what is correct:
>>>
>>> inline int small_func(void)
>>> {
>>>     /* do something */
>>> }
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> int inline small_func(void)
>>> {
>>>     /* do something */
>>> }
>>
>> Both are correct but the former is customary.
>>
>>> Also - is the same true for functions having static definition?
>
> For the second case "gcc -std=c99 -pedantic -W -Wall" gives warning: 'inline' 
> is not at beginning of declaration. Why does gcc care about the sequence if 
> both representations are correct ?

gcc doesn't provide warnings about only what is incorrect, but also
stylistic warnings. This is also correct:

  (a && b || c)

So is this

  while (x = 0) { ... }

The above could be potential bugs, though.

Furthermore, some of GCC's warnings also helps with portability issues.  Inline
functions were an extension in many C compilers for a long time.  Maybe not all
C compilers with an inline extension allowed the keyword to be in any position
among the specifiers.

This might be something that has been in GCC for some time. It's also issued
for the GNU C dialect (that you get if you don't use -ansi or -std=c99).
The minimal set of options that obtain this warning are:

  gcc -W foo.c

By the way, I also tried the C++ front end (gcc 4.4.1) and see that it does
not have such a warning. It's implemented in the C front end only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12624

"Mark" <mark_cruzNOTFORSPAM@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Ben Pfaff" <blp@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message 
> news:87mxcdfair.fsf@blp.benpfaff.org...
>>> is it required to have 'inline' keywoard before type in a function
>>> definition/declaration? For example, what is correct:
>>>
>>> inline int small_func(void)
>>> {
>>>     /* do something */
>>> }
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> int inline small_func(void)
>>> {
>>>     /* do something */
>>> }
>>
>> Both are correct but the former is customary.
>>
>>> Also - is the same true for functions having static definition?
>
> For the second case "gcc -std=c99 -pedantic -W -Wall" gives
> warning: 'inline' is not at beginning of declaration. Why does
> gcc care about the sequence if both representations are correct ?

C99 6.11.5 says:

    The placement of a storage-class specifier other than at the
    beginning of the declaration specifiers in a declaration is an
    obsolescent feature.

This doesn't apply to function declarations, but I would think that the
placement of "inline" should be treated similarly.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web