From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: optimizing out inline functions
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 22:00:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080528200057.GA7300@uranus.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <524f69650805281251r1b1d99a1tc3223d15e3aeb50c@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 02:51:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> In trying to remove some macros, I ran across another kernel style
> question. I see two ways that people try to let the compiler optimize
> out unused code and would like to know which is preferred. The first
> example uses an empty inline function and trusts the compiler will
> optimize it out.
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING
> static inline void some_debug_function(var1)
> {
> something = var1;
> printk(some debug text);
> }
> #else
> static inline void some_debug_function(var1)
> {
> /* empty function */
> }
> #endif
With reference to a recent thread about kconfig
I would prefer:
static inline void some_debug_function(var1)
{
if (KCONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING) {
something = var1;
printk(some debug text);
}
}
But we do not have KCONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING available
so the second best is to use an empty function
to keep the typechecking in place.
IIRC gcc optimize both away.
Sam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-28 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-28 19:51 optimizing out inline functions Steve French
2008-05-28 19:54 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-05-29 8:40 ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-28 20:00 ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2008-05-29 16:39 ` Steve French
2008-05-29 17:20 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-06-02 9:38 ` Vegard Nossum
[not found] <ayzYV-7mv-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <ayA8E-89e-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
2008-05-28 20:37 ` James Kosin
2008-05-29 3:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-05-29 3:04 ` Joe Perches
2008-05-29 13:11 ` James Kosin
2008-05-29 13:13 ` James Kosin
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=20080528200057.GA7300@uranus.ravnborg.org \
--to=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=smfrench@gmail.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