[En-Nut-Discussion] Scheduling out of Interrupt sometimes take a timertick NAP

[Harald Kipp]

Uwe,

On 09.03.2015 16:49, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
> Is there any reason not to rewrite NutEventPostFromIrq() as an static inline
> function? That way, type checking is done by the compiler. And hopefully
> your argument about the none-need for volatile for function arguments would
> still hold.

What makes you believe, that type checking is not done within a macro?

Try

char qp;
NutEventPostFromIrq(qp);

Yeah, but I know, what you mean. ;-) I agree, that inline functions
should be preferred, if parameter types are fixed.

Unfortunately C89 didn't specify static inline functions. Typically I
try to avoid C99, if it doesn't add anything to the final code. However,
static inline functions can be easily replaced with macros, if the
compiler doesn't support them in a right way. So I have no objections in
declaring static inline functions.

Btw. do you know, whether the latest GCC is now finally following the
ISO standard for static inline functions?

Regards,

Harald