Is everybody an idiot today??

[cjsmith]

For the C/C++ geeks out there, here's a grumpymaking thing I stumbled upon today.

In a .h file:

void __inline FUNCTION_NAME(mystruct* foo)
{
   foo->addrValid = TRUE; 
}

And therefore, in my .c file:

// HORRIBLE HACK!  Only one .o in an executable can have StupidInclude.h included.
// It defines inline functions and the link step will fail if multiple .o files
// contain those definitions.  But every .o in this type of executable must have the
// app data structure definition... which, for this app, relies on StupidInclude.h.
// Therefore, there can be only one .o in this executable.
#include "echoer.c"
#include "listener.c"
#include "pinger.c"

I know there are ways around this, potentially involving (say) precompiled headers, but this is supposedly a simple proof-of-concept app so I'm not bothering for now. And seriously. Who would release something like that and not get fired? Never mind; I know the answer.

Comments

[brooksmoses]

Hah -- I was right about this being related to the GCC/inline weirdness, I think. See this post for a review of the issues.

In C99, "inline" means, roughly, the same thing as "static inline". However, GCC still defaults to using the pre-C99 meaning, where it's only a compiler hint with no actual semantic meaning (and so externally-visible symbols should still get emitted).

Passing the -std=gnu99 option to GCC, if you're using a sufficiently recent version, should do the trick (though it may cause other problems).

(I will note that this is all predicated on GCC treating "inline" and "__inline" as identical, which I think is the case, but I'm not absolutely certain of it.)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Cool! Thanks for the link.

It would be spectacularly awful if "-std=gnu99" were incompatible with this system. I wouldn't put it past 'em. But I haven't tried it yet. Other things ate my afternoon. :)