should we change 'extern inline' to 'static inline'?

should we change 'extern inline' to 'static inline'?

[Antony Pavlov]

Hi!

It looks like 'extern inline' breaks gcc-5.x build.

Here is U-Boot patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/490178/

In barebox we have several 'extern inline' functions in arch/blackfin and arch/ppc:

arch/blackfin/include/asm/io.h
arch/blackfin/include/asm/processor.h
arch/ppc/include/asm/atomic.h
arch/ppc/include/asm/bitops.h
arch/ppc/include/asm/io.h

I can't fix it by myself because I have neither blackfin nor ppc cross-compiler to check result.

-- 
Best regards,
  Antony Pavlov

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: should we change 'extern inline' to 'static inline'?

[Sascha Hauer]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 08:07:33AM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> It looks like 'extern inline' breaks gcc-5.x build.
> 
> Here is U-Boot patch https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/490178/
> 
> In barebox we have several 'extern inline' functions in arch/blackfin and arch/ppc:
> 
> arch/blackfin/include/asm/io.h
> arch/blackfin/include/asm/processor.h
> arch/ppc/include/asm/atomic.h
> arch/ppc/include/asm/bitops.h
> arch/ppc/include/asm/io.h
> 
> I can't fix it by myself because I have neither blackfin nor ppc cross-compiler to check result.

Thanks for noting. I just created the according patches. My build
checker will detect the failures if there are any.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox