Since the old client is written in C++, perhaps spice-common code is compiled with vc++. According to msdn, "inline" is supported in this case: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z8y1yy88.aspx "The inline keyword is available only in C++." On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Marc-André Lureau <mlureau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:16:30AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: >> > >> > >> > > Won't that make VC++ unhappy? >> > >> > It's not being used in the protocol headers. >> > >> > For the usage, it's used partially in spice-common (mixed with regular >> > inline), in which we require c99 anyway, as said in commit message. >> >> This does not answer the question. Iirc vc++ does not support c99, so >> INLINE may be needed by vc++. The spice-common headers may already be c99 >> or broken with vc++, but 'it's already broken' is not a very convincing >> reason > > I don't know if it is broken, but if it is, apparently nobody cares :/ > > in spice-common, 61 usage of inline, 49 of INLINE. > >> to make things worse. glib seems to have some portability magic for >> 'inline'. >> With that said, this would only impact win builds of the old spicec client, >> so we can probably decide it's not a big issue. > > The old client doesnt' even make use of it, and uses "inline" instead. -- Marc-André Lureau _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel