Re: unit testing and G_INLINE_FUNC - breakage moving from 2.4 to 2.6

[Brandon Moore <brandonm yahoo-inc com>]

Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> Brandon> I've gotten a few tests to build by G_INLINE_FUNC to be empty
> Brandon> before including the .c file. Another approach would be moving the
> Brandon> include of the .c file up to the top of the test, so G_IMPLEMENT_INLINES
> Brandon> is set from the beginning, but that's not entirely foolproof either
> Brandon> because it might break if we need to link a test together from a few
> Brandon> source files that all try this trick.
>
> Brandon> Another option would be redefining G_INLINE_FUNC to pick up the value of
> Brandon> G_IMPLEMENT_INLINES at the point of use rather than where glib is first
> Brandon> included. Something like this seems to behave, as long as you
> Brandon> only define G_IMPLEMENT_INLINES to be 1 or empty
>
> Brandon> #define G_INLINE_FUNC GIF_DELAY(G_IMPLEMENT_INLINES)
> Brandon> #define GIF_DELAY(X) GIF_TEST(X)
> Brandon> #define GIF_TEST(X) GIF_##X
> Brandon> #define GIF_1 extern inline
> Brandon> #define GIF_ extern inline
> Brandon> #define GIF_G_IMPLEMENT_INLINES
> Brandon> (GIF_DELAY is to get around some wierdness in the behaviour of ##).
>
> Sorry I don't get it.  Why must you use these obscure glib macros at all?
> Why can't you simply declare your functions hard "static inline"?

Mostly I'm hoping it's safer to use extern inline plus one non-inline 
version, as in easier to understand what the code is doing. I thought 
things like using a static variable in the inline function would work 
better that way, but it looks like gcc screws that up even when using 
extern inline.

Another reason is that we have a lot of code already written that uses 
the G_INLINE_FUNC macros, so it would be a lot of work to rip that stuff 
out, if somebody knows a way to work with them.

Writing static inline sounds like a reasonable approach, if extern 
inline can't save you from thinking of the implementation when tricky 
stuff breaks.

Brandon

> "It's not true or not."  A reality show producer (real quote)
Sounds like he's a constructivist