Steve Grubb writes:
> It would seem to me that after hearing how the macros are used in practice,
> wouldn't turning them into inline functions be an improvement? This is
> something gcc supports, it accomplishes the same thing, and has the added
> advantage of type checking.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/gcc_4.html#SEC92
Two reasons:
1) Sometimes I don't want any type checking because it would create
the necessity of adding a new include to a file --> a circular
dependency to resolve. Macros hide the types except in the
cases where they are actually invoked :-)
2) Historically GCC was very bad with code generation with inline
functions, so at that time the GCC manual statement "inline
functions are just like a macro" was technically false :-)
Yes, I know this is much different in today's gcc tree, but
there hasn't been a gcc release in over 2 years so...
Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 21:00:16 EST