Re: wined3d: Replace inline static with static inline

[Ivan Gyurdiev]

Why should "inline static" be replaced with "static inline".
Does it improve compatibility with certain compilers?

Also, does wine aim to be compliant with ANSI, C99, or  somewhere in 
between (-gnu89)?

wined3d: Replace inline static with static inline

[Andrew Talbot]

Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
> Why should "inline static" be replaced with "static inline".
> Does it improve compatibility with certain compilers?
>
> Also, does wine aim to be compliant with ANSI, C99, or  somewhere in
> between (-gnu89)?

Hi Ivan,

Although declaration specifiers (i.e., storage-class specifers [e.g.,
extern, static], type specifiers [e.g., char, int], type qualifiers [e.g.,
const, volatile], function specifiers [e.g., inline]) may be placed in any
order, putting the storage-class specifier anywhere other than first is
officially obsolescent (i.e., deprecated post-C90, though not actually
removed from C99).

My view is that it is more fundamental to know whether a function has local
(static) or global (extern) linkage, than to know whether it has been
optimized for speed (inline), say, and it is easier to find the internal
functions if the "static" keyword comes first. But there may be as many
views on this as there are orders of placement. :)

-- Andy.