Re: INLINE -> inline

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 05/28/11 12:35, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> I'm saying that we should have only
>> one of "INLINE" and "inline", not both.
>
> Yes, that makes sense.  Since 'inline' is standard and is widely
> used in other GNU packages, it makes sense to use it in Emacs too.
> That will shorten the Emacs source code and make it easier for
> others to understand.  Here's a proposed patch to do that.
> I've tested it on Fedora 14 x86_64.

Nice.  I wrote nearly the same patch, but prefer yours for the additional
changes like this and the ones in gmalloc.c and lisp.h that further
normalize __inline and __inline__ to inline and remove those ifdefs.

> === modified file 'lib-src/etags.c'
> --- lib-src/etags.c   2011-05-21 02:27:00 +0000
> +++ lib-src/etags.c   2011-05-28 22:01:45 +0000
> @@ -2360,14 +2360,7 @@
>  struct C_stab_entry { const char *name; int c_ext; enum sym_type type; };
>  /* maximum key range = 33, duplicates = 0 */
>
> -#ifdef __GNUC__
> -__inline
> -#else
> -#ifdef __cplusplus
> -inline
> -#endif
> -#endif
> -static unsigned int
> +static inline unsigned int
>  hash (register const char *str, register unsigned int len)
>  {
>    static unsigned char asso_values[] =