On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 06/12/18 13:19, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > > > Oh, by [0] __GCC_STDC_INLINE__ is indeed actually the correct symbol > > to check for. Clang does support that, so nothing to fix there. > > > >> By the way, you should check clang against gcc's predefined macros by doing: > >> > >> gcc [options] -x c -Wp,-dM -E /dev/null | sort > >> > >> Options can change the predefined macros substantially, especially the, -std=, arch and -O options. -x c can be replaced with e.g. -x c++, objective-c, assembler-with-cpp etc. > > > > Neat, I'll have to bookmark that incantation. I can s/gcc/clang/ to > > get a similar list (which is how I know it supports > > __GCC_STDC_INLINE__).> > > I bet that if you add -fgnu89-inlines then it *does* define > __GNUC_GNU_INLINE__. Indeed! I see what you mean about [options] changing the predefined symbol list. > > Patch now becomes something like: > > > > #ifdef __GNUC_GNU_INLINE__ > > #define __gnu_inline __attribute__((gnu_inline)) > > #else > > #define __gnu_inline > > #endif > > > > #define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline, unused)) notrace > > __gnu_inline > > ... > > > > Issues with that approach? > > > > s/__GNUC_GNU_INLINE__/__GNUC_STDC_INLINE__/ Oops, sorry, yes good catch. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
