Re: a question about style(9) and inline

On 13 Aug 2025, at 19:31, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> In looking at lib/msun/math_private, one finds
> 
> static __inline float complex
> static __inline double complex
> static __inline long double complex
> static inline double
> static inline float
> static inline long double
> static __inline int
> static __inline int
> static __inline int
> static inline int32_t
> static inline int32_t
> 
> style(9) seems to not contain any preference with respect
> to __inline versus inline.  As a matter of consistency,
> I would like to use whatever is the preferred keyword.
> So, which should be used?

In <sys/cdefs.h>, __inline is defined such that the keyword is removed
if the compiler doesn't support it. I doubt it is possible to compile
FreeBSD which such a compiler, so the whole __inline define now seems
only necessary for backwards compatibility's sake. Since plain inline is
already used in libm, it does not really make sense to use __inline
anymore, in my opinion.

-Dimitry