[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #36921] util/delay.h uses inline...

From: Weddington, Eric
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #36921] util/delay.h uses inline...
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:39:43 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:avr-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Joerg
> Wunsch
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:44 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [bug #36921] util/delay.h uses inline...
> As David Brown wrote:
> > Agreed - though it is possible that some parts might require gcc
> > extensions to C99.  What should be done if gcc extensions are not
> > required, but would allow the generation of better (smaller/faster)
> > code?  One possible situation here is when attributes such as "const" or
> > "pure" would allow better optimisation.
> So far, I don't know of any of the GCC extensions which could not be
> brought in by either escaping them with two underscores, or explicitly
> declaring them being __extension__.  That way, you can still compile
> the code with either -std=c89 -pedantic or -std=c99 -pedantic without
> getting complaints.  After all, we (as "vendor" of a system library)
> are the prime reason for allowing that kind of properly marked
> extensions.

Ok. The above seems reasonable to me.

Sorry for the long discussion over two underscores. ;-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]