[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:02:43 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.1 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Hmm, what if GCC's __NO_INLINE__ macro is defined? Shouldn't
> m4/inline.m4 define HAVE_INLINE only if __NO_INLINE__ is not defined?
Yes. I applied this.
2006-11-08 Bruno Haible <address@hidden>
* m4/inline.m4 (gl_INLINE): Also test __NO_INLINE__.
Suggested by Paul Eggert.
*** m4/inline.m4 7 Nov 2006 13:46:03 -0000 1.1
--- m4/inline.m4 8 Nov 2006 14:01:21 -0000
***************
*** 1,4 ****
! # inline.m4 serial 1
dnl Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
dnl This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
dnl gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
--- 1,4 ----
! # inline.m4 serial 2
dnl Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
dnl This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
dnl gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
***************
*** 7,19 ****
dnl Test for the 'inline' keyword or equivalent.
dnl Define 'inline' to a supported equivalent, or to nothing if not supported,
dnl like AC_C_INLINE does. Also, define HAVE_INLINE if 'inline' or an
! dnl equivalent is supported, i.e. if the compiler is likely to drop unused
! dnl 'static inline' functions.
AC_DEFUN([gl_INLINE],
[
AC_REQUIRE([AC_C_INLINE])
! if test $ac_cv_c_inline != no; then
AC_DEFINE([HAVE_INLINE], 1,
! [Define to 1 if the compiler supports one of the keywords 'inline',
'__inline__', '__inline'.])
fi
])
--- 7,35 ----
dnl Test for the 'inline' keyword or equivalent.
dnl Define 'inline' to a supported equivalent, or to nothing if not supported,
dnl like AC_C_INLINE does. Also, define HAVE_INLINE if 'inline' or an
! dnl equivalent is effectively supported, i.e. if the compiler is likely to
! dnl drop unused 'static inline' functions.
AC_DEFUN([gl_INLINE],
[
AC_REQUIRE([AC_C_INLINE])
! AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether the compiler generally respects inline],
! [gl_cv_c_inline_effective],
! [if test $ac_cv_c_inline = no; then
! gl_cv_c_inline_effective=no
! else
! dnl GCC defines __NO_INLINE__ if not optimizing or if -fno-inline is
! dnl specified.
! AC_EGREP_CPP([bummer], [
! #ifdef __NO_INLINE__
! bummer
! #endif
! ], [gl_cv_c_inline_effective=no], [gl_cv_c_inline_effective=yes])
! fi
! ])
! if test $gl_cv_c_inline_effective = yes; then
AC_DEFINE([HAVE_INLINE], 1,
! [Define to 1 if the compiler supports one of the keywords
! 'inline', '__inline__', '__inline' and effectively inlines
! functions marked as such.])
fi
])
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc (was: Re: C++ support (2)), Bruno Haible, 2006/11/01
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/01
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Bruno Haible, 2006/11/02
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/02
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Bruno Haible, 2006/11/06
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/06
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Bruno Haible, 2006/11/07
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Bruno Haible, 2006/11/07
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/07
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Bruno Haible, 2006/11/08
- Re: [bug-gnulib] xmalloc, xnmalloc, Bruno Haible, 2006/11/07