Re: CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING

Christoph Hellwig
2008-04-27T06:26:20Z

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.