From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E221D816 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 05:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712468432; cv=none; b=aalJewCgwGOlx72hiahYwZuVy121ttYNRni+Dg5H7PfE8yJbJZm2mGwIYo1d4ANQOPwj7O4y+OvbnhCtdCjQkKOYdUqBidSHYw9/fTWSnbNEqDAbHXvYIZQRJRrG18YTfkQY4Rbhk6J+yPyeWx4uNKFxrzdAES8eU+DmKkuQcjo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712468432; c=relaxed/simple; bh=z6SCF72GKnytrOQad9MNdf/oUaQW96RvNieFyex+jc0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qZzw2kulvKDNK6lxmcq3EDzNUmWBMIKMN6ENCHRvmOY5FbHqT8gfg+JG68G6p2MwX3Zir4GUiFdcNwffpb6Uzbu1gHxotvgsbZGuB6mvpGAj7biATewHMIQIWjMN4WPXBQU6VcXcn80ptSWqWAk6AVETX2PMbRX/KKA0ORjkPE4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=jWKkU/qb; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="jWKkU/qb" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2282D9A3; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 01:40:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=z6SCF72GKnytrOQad9MNdf/oUaQW96RvNieFye x+jc0=; b=jWKkU/qb8CZzUObU24nDu1NaoMAvB5+04OzrwgLfMwFP3GJs0u+SIY WG7a7WbK89DCZWaZlTBY2WzjBFTIMlb9fQ6w6rx5Oq0Sk1iv7l/Qn3txNBC6N5px J5YxBdkBZP6wcIBLFzfa4zInQBY9ljQndWc2jsvBhZR8OA5ZoDgGs= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4365F2D9A2; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 01:40:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.229.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C80312D9A0; Sun, 7 Apr 2024 01:40:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Dragan Simic , prpr 19xx , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Warning message in remote.c when compiling In-Reply-To: <20240407013843.GE1085004@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sat, 6 Apr 2024 21:38:43 -0400") References: <7f0da057773d39add4ede71667e9ff70@manjaro.org> <20240407013843.GE1085004@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2024 22:40:25 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5635FBF6-F4A1-11EE-B9D5-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > I don't really see any need to mark the wrapper as inline. It's one > basic function call (on top of an interface which requires a callback > anyway!), and I suspect many compilers would consider inlining anyway, > since it's a static function. > > Ditto for remotes_pushremote_get(), though it doesn't have a forward > declaration. Yup. I presonally feel that we should get rid of "static inline" unless they appear in header files. The compilers should in general be able to do good enough job finding what to inline than we can (1) initially mark what to inline, and (2) update by dropping "inline" that is no longer appropriate as the code evolves. Thanks.