From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266183AbUHGCl7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:41:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268226AbUHGCl6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:41:58 -0400 Received: from are.twiddle.net ([64.81.246.98]:55425 "EHLO are.twiddle.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266183AbUHGCl5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2004 22:41:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:41:53 -0700 From: Richard Henderson To: Tim Bird Cc: linux kernel Subject: Re: Is extern inline -> static inline OK? Message-ID: <20040807024153.GB25900@twiddle.net> Mail-Followup-To: Tim Bird , linux kernel References: <4112D32B.4060900@am.sony.com> <20040806070027.GA20642@twiddle.net> <4113D480.9050003@am.sony.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4113D480.9050003@am.sony.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:57:04AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: > 2) avoid wasting space with multiple function copies Mostly this one. The translation units that do the EXTERN_INLINE defines also define tables containing (among other things) pointers to all of these functions. So we *know* that we require one out-of-line copy in one translation unit, so we might as well make that version the canonical out-of-line copy. Also, I seem to recall some multiply-defined symbol something or other the last time someone messed with our inlining construct. r~