From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: __attribute__((always_inline)) fiasco
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:47:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040923084746.GA9101@twiddle.net> (raw)
I'm displeased with someone's workaround for decisions made by
the (rather weak) inliner in gcc 3.[123]. In particular, that
someone doesn't understand all of the implications of always_inline.
This attribute was invented to handle certain cases in <altivec.h>
and <xmmintrin.h> that contain assembly instructions that require
constant arguments. These instructions *cannot* be emitted unless
the user of the function supplies a constant. Which, under normal
usage situations is not a problem -- when the user doesn't give us
a constant, we error and that's the end. But it does mean that
the compiler is specifically *not* allowed to emit an out-of-line
copy of such a function, since there is in fact no way to legally
do so.
In the Alpha port I have a number of places in which I have
functions that I would like inlined when they are called directly,
but I also need to take their address so that they may be registered
as part of a dispatch vector for the specific machine model.
This scheme fails because my functions got marked always_inline
behind my back, which means they didn't get emitted in the right
place.
Rather than fight the unwinnable fight to remove this hack entirely,
may I ask that at least one of the different names for inline, e.g.
__inline__, be left un-touched so that it can be used by those that
understand what the keyword is supposed to mean?
Of course, there does not exist a variant that isn't used by all
sorts of random code, so presumably all existing occurences would
have to get renamed to plan "inline" in order to keep people happy...
r~
next reply other threads:[~2004-09-23 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-23 8:47 Richard Henderson [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-09-23 16:26 __attribute__((always_inline)) fiasco Albert Cahalan
2004-09-23 16:50 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-23 16:59 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-09-23 17:03 ` Richard Henderson
2004-09-23 17:21 ` viro
2004-09-23 17:33 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-23 17:39 ` viro
2004-09-26 1:29 ` Tonnerre
2004-09-26 2:05 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-30 16:19 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-09-23 16:54 ` Richard Henderson
2004-09-23 17:46 ` Albert Cahalan
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=20040923084746.GA9101@twiddle.net \
--to=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox