From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Extend inline asm syntax with size spec Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:22:40 +0200 Message-ID: <20181010072240.GB103159@gmail.com> References: <20181003213100.189959-1-namit@vmware.com> <20181007091805.GA30687@zn.tnic> <20181007132228.GJ29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181008073128.GL29268@gate.crashing.org> <20181009145330.GT29268@gate.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Richard Biener Cc: Kate Stewart , Peter Zijlstra , Christopher Li , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Masahiro Yamada , Nadav Amit , Jan Beulich , "H. Peter Anvin" , Sam Ravnborg , Thomas Gleixner , x86@kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Kees Cook , Segher Boessenkool , Chris Zankel , Michael Matz , Borislav Petkov , Josh Poimboeuf , Alok Kataria , Juergen Gross , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Max Filippov , Greg Kroah-Hartman lin List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org * Richard Biener wrote: > Can kernel folks give this a second and third thought please so we > don't implement sth that in the end won't satisfy you guys? So this basically passes '0 size' to the inliner, which should be better than passing in the explicit size, as we'd inevitably get it wrong in cases. I also like 'size 0' for the reason that we tend to write assembly code and mark it 'inline' if we really think it matters to performance, so making it more likely to be inlined when used within another inline function is a plus as well. Does anyone have any concerns about this? Thanks, Ingo