From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Cc: 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 13:47:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705241347.43727.rob@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ada3b1m87pa.fsf@cisco.com>
On Thursday 24 May 2007 1:14 pm, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > A function only belongs into a header file if we always want it inlined,
> > otherwise it belongs into a C file.
>
> Again, why? Why don't we trust the compiler to decide if a function
> should be inlined or not, even if the definition happens to be in a .h
> file?
Because the purpose of .h files is to be included in more than one .c file.
(Otherwise it should be a .c file.)
And if you #include a non-inlined definition in two .c files, the compiler
will emit two copies into two separate .o files. What you're hoping is that
the linker will notice they're identical and merge them, and last I checked I
couldn't even reliably get it to do that with constant strings.
> It seems like a perfectly valid optimization for the compiler to only
> emit code once for a function and then call it where it is used, even
> if that function happens to be defined in a .h file.
If we put it in a header, it's because we want it inlined. If we don't want
it inlined it SHOULDN'T BE IN THE HEADER.
If the compiler can emit a warning "inline insanely large", we can use that to
fix it. But a warning is not the same as silently doing something other than
what we told it to do.
> - R.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-24 17:50 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
2007-05-24 17:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:14 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 17:47 ` Rob Landley [this message]
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=200705241347.43727.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 \
/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