This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Build question
- From: Danny Backx <danny dot backx at scarlet dot be>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:54:33 +0200
- Subject: Re: Build question
- References: <m3r5v425lu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1250931899.11282.142.camel@pavilion> <83skfkfa4n.fsf@gnu.org> <1251095160.16357.352.camel@pavilion> <1251828295.6106.119.camel@pavilion> <83zl9e8nro.fsf@gnu.org> <1251835928.6106.124.camel@pavilion> <83vdk281xb.fsf@gnu.org> <1252143311.6106.252.camel@pavilion> <83eiql4blw.fsf@gnu.org> <20090907221152.GL30677@adacore.com>
- Reply-to: danny dot backx at scarlet dot be
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 15:11 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > +static inline int _isalpha(int c)
> > > +{
> > > + if (c <= 'Z' && c >= 'A')
> > > + return TRUE;
> > > + if (c <= 'z' && c >= 'a')
> > > + return TRUE;
> > > + return FALSE;
> > > +}
> >
> > I'm not sure what The Powers That Be think about defining inline
> > functions in a header.
>
> As far as I am concerned, I would really like us to avoid them.
> In this case, is the author trying to achieve performance or
> to get a behavior that's independent from the locale?
They are slightly more readable than the equivalent macros.
I've converted my code to use macros already. I need to add code to it
(to set the option) before I submit a new version.
Danny
--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info