From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Derek M Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] let sparse warn on &inline_function Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:06:49 +0100 Message-ID: <44718D39.4020000@knosof.co.uk> References: <200605201621.48466.mb@bu3sch.de> <446F3149.4060606@knosof.co.uk> <200605201734.40756.mb@bu3sch.de> <446F3B91.6020709@knosof.co.uk> <20060521193709.GA22520@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <4470EBB6.6030404@knosof.co.uk> <20060522083650.GA19072@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mta08-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]:26876 "EHLO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750702AbWEVKGy (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 06:06:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20060522083650.GA19072@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= Cc: Michael Buesch , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org J=F6rn, >>>> It makes perfect sense for me to want 'direct' calls to be >>>> inlined and be willing to accept that calls via pointers >>>> will not be inlined. >>> Does this still make sense with CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE set? >> Using the inline specifier may or may not make sense in this case. >=20 > And this is exactly what warnings are all about. If the code in > question may make sense, but there is a certain likelyhood that it > does not, print a warning. In which case the message needs to be changed to flag the function definition that contains the inline function specifier, not the point at which it is the operand of an address-of operator. --=20 Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:derek@knosof.co.uk Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk