From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:55:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705241255.07300.rob@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705240836340.4500@localhost.localdomain>
On Thursday 24 May 2007 8:38 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
> > > - every static function in a header file must be __always_inline
> >
> > Why? Why does it matter whether a function is defined in a .h file or
> > a .c file? Can't the compiler decide better than we can whether
> > something should be inlined or not?
> >
> > Your argument seems to imply that we should never use the inline
> > keyword at all.
Do we ever use the "register" keyword anymore? I don't make "suggestions" to
gcc, I hit it with a clue-by-by four.
> i hate to be in the middle of one of these again, but i think i
> initiated this topic way back when when i (like rob landley) asked why
> that config option was still around when it's been listed for deletion
> for a year.
I'm actually trying to write documentation on it. Temporary copy at:
http://landley.net/kdocs/inline.html
> regardless of its good or bad points, one way or the other, something
> should be updated.
I'd be happy to just figure out what the policy is. It seems like
the "inline" keyword should no longer be used, and either say __always_inline
or leave it to the compiler. If there's a good counter-argument, I'd love to
hear it.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-24 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-23 19:10 Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING? Rob Landley
2007-05-23 19:42 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-23 21:22 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-23 21:28 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 12:38 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-05-24 16:55 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2007-05-24 17:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:14 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 17:47 ` Rob Landley
2007-05-24 17:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 18:14 ` Rob Landley
2007-05-24 17:55 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 18:07 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 18:32 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 22:41 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-23 21:31 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 17:12 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-24 17:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:17 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 17:40 ` Rob Landley
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=200705241255.07300.rob@landley.net \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
/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