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__. > > 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__/ -hpa _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
