From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:55:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705241255.07300.rob@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705240836340.4500@localhost.localdomain>
On Thursday 24 May 2007 8:38 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
> > > - every static function in a header file must be __always_inline
> >
> > Why? Why does it matter whether a function is defined in a .h file or
> > a .c file? Can't the compiler decide better than we can whether
> > something should be inlined or not?
> >
> > Your argument seems to imply that we should never use the inline
> > keyword at all.
Do we ever use the "register" keyword anymore? I don't make "suggestions" to
gcc, I hit it with a clue-by-by four.
> i hate to be in the middle of one of these again, but i think i
> initiated this topic way back when when i (like rob landley) asked why
> that config option was still around when it's been listed for deletion
> for a year.
I'm actually trying to write documentation on it. Temporary copy at:
http://landley.net/kdocs/inline.html
> regardless of its good or bad points, one way or the other, something
> should be updated.
I'd be happy to just figure out what the policy is. It seems like
the "inline" keyword should no longer be used, and either say __always_inline
or leave it to the compiler. If there's a good counter-argument, I'd love to
hear it.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-24 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-23 19:10 Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING? Rob Landley
2007-05-23 19:42 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-23 21:22 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-23 21:28 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 12:38 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-05-24 16:55 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2007-05-24 17:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:14 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 17:47 ` Rob Landley
2007-05-24 17:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 18:14 ` Rob Landley
2007-05-24 17:55 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 18:07 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 18:32 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 22:41 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-23 21:31 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 17:12 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-24 17:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:17 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 17:40 ` Rob Landley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200705241255.07300.rob@landley.net \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.