opensm/complib: redundant redeclaration of functions

opensm/complib: redundant redeclaration of functions

[Yevgeny Kliteynik]

Hi Sasha,

There are couple of places in complib headers that cause
compiler to complain:

	cl_atomic.h:73: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_inc'
	cl_atomic_osd.h:58: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_inc' was here

	cl_atomic.h:104: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_dec'
	cl_atomic_osd.h:69: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_dec' was here

	cl_atomic.h:136: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_add'
	cl_atomic_osd.h:81: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_add' was here

	cl_atomic.h:171: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_atomic_sub'
	cl_atomic_osd.h:93: warning: previous definition of 'cl_atomic_sub' was here

	cl_thread.h:346: warning: redundant redeclaration of 'cl_is_blockable'
	cl_thread_osd.h:63: warning: previous definition of 'cl_is_blockable' was here

In general, here's the problem:

We have cl_file.h and cl_file_osd.h.
cl_file.h has include directive for cl_file_osd.h
cl_file.h has the following definition of function:
	int foo();

cl_file_osd.h has another function definition, but
this time it also has implementation:
	static inline int foo() { ..... }

Any preferable way to fix this?

Get rid of the _osd.h files and have the functions
implementation included in the usual .h file?

Define some *_HAVE_OSD flag in the _osd.h file
and enclose function declaration in the usual .h
file with #ifndef?

Any other ideas (I'd go for option 2)?

-- Yevgeny

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: opensm/complib: redundant redeclaration of functions

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:

> In general, here's the problem:
> 
> We have cl_file.h and cl_file_osd.h.
> cl_file.h has include directive for cl_file_osd.h
> cl_file.h has the following definition of function:
> 	int foo();
> 
> cl_file_osd.h has another function definition, but
> this time it also has implementation:
> 	static inline int foo() { ..... }
> 
> Any preferable way to fix this?

It looks to me like using 'extern inline' is appropriate here:

extern inline int foo();

[..]

inline int foo()
{
   body
}

If no inline version is defined then the compiler just emits a normal
function call, if an inline version is defined then the compiler might
use it.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: opensm/complib: redundant redeclaration of functions

[Yevgeny Kliteynik]

On 01/Feb/10 20:46, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 03:05:13PM +0200, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>
>> In general, here's the problem:
>>
>> We have cl_file.h and cl_file_osd.h.
>> cl_file.h has include directive for cl_file_osd.h
>> cl_file.h has the following definition of function:
>> 	int foo();
>>
>> cl_file_osd.h has another function definition, but
>> this time it also has implementation:
>> 	static inline int foo() { ..... }
>>
>> Any preferable way to fix this?
>
> It looks to me like using 'extern inline' is appropriate here:
>
> extern inline int foo();
>
> [..]
>
> inline int foo()
> {
>     body
> }
>
> If no inline version is defined then the compiler just emits a normal
> function call, if an inline version is defined then the compiler might
> use it.

Thanks for the idea.
I read some documentation about it, and it does look that
your suggestion should fix the problem, but it didn't :(
Probably because they both are in .h files.

-- Yevgeny
  
> Jason
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: opensm/complib: redundant redeclaration of functions

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 03:11:26PM +0200, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
> >If no inline version is defined then the compiler just emits a normal
> >function call, if an inline version is defined then the compiler might
> >use it.
> 
> Thanks for the idea.
> I read some documentation about it, and it does look that
> your suggestion should fix the problem, but it didn't :(

> Probably because they both are in .h files.

No, but they do have to be in the right order.

first header:

extern inline int foo();
inline int foo()
{
    body
}

2nd header:
extern inline int foo();

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html