Re: CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 07:59:43AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> here, two months ago:
> 
>   http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/3/122
> 
> i made it x86-only due to this FUD that went against it:
> 
>   "messing with a global #define in a way that the results on 24 
>    architectures with 7 different releases of gcc would be 
>    unpredictable."
> 
> ... as i saw no reason why this feature, which i found rather useful, 
> should be delayed another year or so. I'd be more than happy to promote 
> this feature back to lib/Kconfig.debug, sparc64 interest would make that 
> a strong argument.
> 
> and here is the pull request that i posted to lkml, with the full patch 
> included as well:
> 
>   http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/911104?page=last

This still does not explain why it's two commits.   It also doesn't
explain the horrible cpp and ifdef abuse in there - having a config
symbol in one architecture only and then a cpp symbol to prevent the ill
effects of it in one signle architecture is simply utterly braindead,
sorry.

This kind of thing should be discussed at least on linux-arch and input
from at least partially wise people would have led too a much better
solution.  Like, umm moving the option to a global config file and let
the architecture default it to y/n where needed.