Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:

> Jim Blandy wrote:
> > 
> > Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com> writes:
> > > Lightly proofread, no obvious errors found.
> > 
> > Great.  That means all the bugs still there are non-obvious, and will
> > take a long time to find.  Just make my day, will you.  (Thanks.)
> > 
> > > I would prefer constructor_prefix_p et al to be real functions rather
> > > than macros.  When I single-step code in gdb, it's a lot easier to follow
> > > real functions than macros.
> > 
> > I agree completely.  But it is not the standard practice (see target.h
> > and elsewhere) and others don't seem to mind.  So I reined in my prima
> > donna urges and left them as macros.
> 
> Standard pratice is to use functions.  Per the thread on the
> xfer_memory() change - target.h will be fixed :-)

Can I make them static inline functions, and keep them in the header,
like the linux kernel does instead of macros?

Or should i just move them to functions in cp-abi.c?

--Dan