On 31 January 2015 at 11:56, Maciej W. Rozycki <ma...@linux-mips.org> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> > Hmm, so perhaps my idea for a later improvement: >> > >> >> Eventually we might want to move the new inline functions into a >> >> separate header to be included from softfloat.h instead of softfloat.c, >> >> but let's make changes one step at a time. >> > >> > will actually have to be made right away. I suspect GCC is more liberal >> > here due to its convoluted extern/static/inline semantics history. >> > Sigh... >> >> I would suggest just using "static inline", as we do elsewhere >> for little utility functions. > > Yes, that's exactly what they'd have to be moved into a separate header > for.
Why do they need to be moved into a different header to do this? I must be missing something... -- PMM
