Re: Linux-2.6.13-rc7

[Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:07:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> IMO that's a question to rth: why do we really need to block always_inline
> on alpha?

Because I use "extern inline" in the proper way.  That is, I have both
inline and out-of-line versions of some routines.  These routines have
their address taken to be put into the alpha_machine_vector structures,
so we're guaranteed that they'll be out-of-line at least once.

But if you define inline to always_inline, the compiler complains when
its forced to fall back to the out-of-line copy.  And rightly so -- the
feature was INVENTED for using compiler intrinsics that would in fact
not produce valid assembly unless certain parameters are constants.

I've complained about this before.  You always-inline savages have 
obsconded with ALL THREE inline keywords -- "inline", "__inline" and
"__inline__" -- so there is in fact no way to accomplish what I want.

So in a fit of pique I've locally undone not just one, but all of the
always-inline crap.

All that said, something's wrong if we couldn't generate an out-of-line
copy of kmalloc.  The entire block protected by __builtin_constant_p
should have been eliminated.  File a gcc bugzilla report.  


r~