Re: a question about style(9) and inline

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:43:44AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:32 AM 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.
> >
> 
> We generally have static __inline, though the reasons for that are
> historical. We originally did it to support building FreeBSD with a K&R
> compiler.  Now, we've narrowed the scope of K&R support so we only really
> require it for public files since we support K&R compilers that are like
> how gcc implemented this (which basically is to have ansi keywords in the
> identifier space). In that environment, __inline is an extension. In C
> code, this is just a compiler extension meaning the same thing as inline.
> For C++ mode, we redefine __inline to inline. And we have some vestigial
> support for doing the same for the C compiler that doesn't support __inline.
> 
> However, I did a bit of a survey just now, and more recently we've given up
> on that and just use a raw inline by and large. With __inline being a
> legacy item.
> 
> In this context, though, math_private.h isn't public, so I'd just use
> inline. It's ancient enough that the old-school considerations mandated
> __inline (not least because bde favored building with such compilers). Now,
> I don't think it matters anymore, and we should just use the standard way
> of doing it.

Thanks for the input.  inline is in n869.pdf (working draft of 
C99) with 01/18/99 date.  It is likely safe to assume that today
C compilers used to compile FreeBSD support inline.  I'll get
to submitting a patch to cleanup __inline in math_private.h
(eventually).

-- 
Steve