Re: [PATCH v2] Add bit operations util header

Hi Tom,

> The other thing I didn't like about the patch was the assumption that
> it's okay to have a "static inline" function in a header. You can
> get away with that in gcc but *not* in other compilers.

Gee, you user-space guys have it tough! :D

Point taken, will rework.

> Look at the existing coding patterns for, eg, list_head; then go thou
> and do likewise. Or, since there's currently no need for the code
> outside aset.c, forget about putting it in a header and just plop it
> into aset.c.

OK, I'll add a configure check and conditionally use the builtin if it's
available. I have some other patches that could be improved by using
other builtins, so it would be a good opportunity to figure out a nice
pattern for doing this.

Cheers,

Jeremy