On Tuesday 20 December 2011 02:18:17 William Pitcock wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > > Would be perfect with a func impl, most likely. > > I agree that the macro approach is suboptimal for both type-safety > reasons and expansion issues, however, Ulrich's implementation uses an > inline function which is unsafe, and the macro version of the code > would need some reworking to work as a standalone function.
having it be a macro or a static inline would largely get you the same result. it'd have to be a static non-inline func, and leave it up to gcc to calculate when to inline and when to make func calls. > This also > raises the question of what to do with the function -- should we just > make an internal file for libcrypt for utility functions or just have > them as static inlined functions inside the code? it depends on what the func does. if it's only useful to libcrypt, then it should stay in libcrypt as a hidden func. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
