On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:11:32AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau 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. Ok, thanks for the additional details, ACK
Attachment:
pgp6z9eIdx0CD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel