patchDo not make trace.c/getnanotime an inlined function

> Oracle Studio compilers don't allow for static variables in functions
> that are defined to be inline. GNU C does permit this. Let's reference
> the C99 standard though, which doesn't allow for inline functions to
> contain modifiable static variables.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Walton <bdwalton@gmail.com>
> ---
>  trace.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/trace.c b/trace.c
> index b6f25a2..4778608 100644
> --- a/trace.c
> +++ b/trace.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static inline uint64_t gettimeofday_nanos(void)
>   * Returns nanoseconds since the epoch (01/01/1970), for performance tracing
>   * (i.e. favoring high precision over wall clock time accuracy).
>   */
> -inline uint64_t getnanotime(void)
> +uint64_t getnanotime(void)
>  {
>  	static uint64_t offset;
>  	if (offset > 1) {
> 

> Oracle Studio compilers don't allow for static variables in functions
> that are defined to be inline. GNU C does permit this. Let's reference
> the C99 standard though, which doesn't allow for inline functions to
> contain modifiable static variables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Walton <bdwalton@gmail.com>
> ---
>  trace.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/trace.c b/trace.c
> index b6f25a2..4778608 100644
> --- a/trace.c
> +++ b/trace.c
> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static inline uint64_t gettimeofday_nanos(void)
>   * Returns nanoseconds since the epoch (01/01/1970), for performance tracing
>   * (i.e. favoring high precision over wall clock time accuracy).
>   */
> -inline uint64_t getnanotime(void)
> +uint64_t getnanotime(void)
>  {
>         static uint64_t offset;

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Ben Walton <bdwalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Oracle Studio compilers don't allow for static variables in functions
>> that are defined to be inline. GNU C does permit this. Let's reference
>> the C99 standard though, which doesn't allow for inline functions to
>> contain modifiable static variables.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Walton <bdwalton@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  trace.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/trace.c b/trace.c
>> index b6f25a2..4778608 100644
>> --- a/trace.c
>> +++ b/trace.c
>> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static inline uint64_t gettimeofday_nanos(void)
>>   * Returns nanoseconds since the epoch (01/01/1970), for performance tracing
>>   * (i.e. favoring high precision over wall clock time accuracy).
>>   */
>> -inline uint64_t getnanotime(void)
>> +uint64_t getnanotime(void)
>>  {
>>         static uint64_t offset;
>
> Would moving this offset outside getnanotime() work?

> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Ben Walton <bdwalton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Oracle Studio compilers don't allow for static variables in functions
>>> that are defined to be inline. GNU C does permit this. Let's reference
>>> the C99 standard though, which doesn't allow for inline functions to
>>> contain modifiable static variables.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Walton <bdwalton@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  trace.c | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/trace.c b/trace.c
>>> index b6f25a2..4778608 100644
>>> --- a/trace.c
>>> +++ b/trace.c
>>> @@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static inline uint64_t gettimeofday_nanos(void)
>>>   * Returns nanoseconds since the epoch (01/01/1970), for performance tracing
>>>   * (i.e. favoring high precision over wall clock time accuracy).
>>>   */
>>> -inline uint64_t getnanotime(void)
>>> +uint64_t getnanotime(void)
>>>  {
>>>         static uint64_t offset;
>>
>> Would moving this offset outside getnanotime() work?
>
> I am not sure what the definition of "work" is.
>
> The function computes the difference between the returned value from
> gettimeofday(2) and a custom highres_nanos() just once and returns
> the value it got from gettimeofday the first time, and then for
> subsequent calls massages the returned value from highres_nanos() to
> be consistent with the value returned from gettimeofday using the
> offset it computed in the first call.
>
> If we have two copies of this function, two independent probes to
> these pair of underlying functions will be made to compute their
> offsets.

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org
> <mailto:j6t@kdbg.org>> wrote:
>     Am 28.09.2014 um 09:50 schrieb Ben Walton:
>     > -inline uint64_t getnanotime(void)
>     > +uint64_t getnanotime(void)
> 
>     But then the function could stay static, no?
> 
> 
> This function is used in several places outside of the translation unit
> so while it's possible, I think it's more work than it's worth...