Re: Patch for porting Elinks to OpenSolaris

Kalle,

Is this acceptable?

-- mark

Muktha Narayan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
>> "Mark A. Carlson" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>   
>>> +#if defined (__SUNPRO_C)
>>> +static inline void
>>> +#else
>>>  inline void
>>> +#endif
>>>  load_frames(struct session *ses, struct document_view *doc_view)
>>>     
>>
>> This looks like <http://bugzilla.elinks.cz/show_bug.cgi?id=1047>.
>> That bug was reported against ELinks 0.12pre1 though.
>> I haven't heard about such problems with 0.11.5 before.
>> It looks like 0.10.6 has the same bug; can you confirm?
>>
>>   
> Yes, elinks-0.10.6 has the same bug (in session.c and conv.c).
>> Because ELinks is violating a C99 requirement, rather than
>> something specific to Sun, I don't think it's right to make an
>> exception for the Sun compiler.  Instead, we should make the
>> functions not inline and measure how that affects the speed.
>> If it hurts too much, then define e.g. static inline int
>> inline_elinks_ulongcat() and make both int elinks_ulongcat()
>> and int elinks_longcat() call that.  GCC should generate from
>> that approximately the same code as from the current sources.
>>   
> Attached  is the modified patch incorporating the above comments. 
> Please confirm if the patch is acceptable.
>
> Regards
> Muktha

-- 
<http://www.sun.com> 	* Mark A. Carlson *
Sr. Architect

*Systems Group*
Phone x69559 / 303-223-6139
Email [email protected]

_______________________________________________
elinks-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/elinks-dev