From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44005) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTCqq-0001aB-I5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:17:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTCqn-0001Pp-Bn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:17:24 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52427) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTCqn-0001Pc-6p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:17:21 -0500 References: <1455031511-23684-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <56BA0F09.8060302@redhat.com> <56BA0F98.2040300@redhat.com> <56BA1D97.5040705@redhat.com> <56BA1F5B.3050903@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <56BA2D2C.5020100@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:17:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/14] More #include cleanups List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Eric Blake Cc: Richard Henderson , QEMU Developers , Patch Tracking On 09/02/2016 19:04, Peter Maydell wrote: > Next question -- do we really need to redefine "inline" to > always_inline at all, in C or C++? (cc'd a few people who might > have an opinion). My instinct is to say "don't do this, just > trust the compiler to decide whether to bother inlining". Besides this, it sounds like a thing you'd do in the old -ffixed-reg days... Paolo