Re: optimizing out inline functions

[James Kosin <jkosin@beta.intcomgrp.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1473 bytes --]

Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> James Kosin <jkosin@beta.intcomgrp.com> writes:
>
>   
>> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>     
>>> 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
>>>>         
>> <<--SNIP-->>
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> Another way would be to have:
>>
>> static inline void some_debug_function(var1)
>> {
>>    #ifdef KCONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING
>>       something = var1;
>>       printk(some debug text);
>>    #endif
>> }
>>
>> BUT, this probably violates some styling rules.
>>     
>
> Without indenting the ifdefs, I think this solution is the best.
>
> It gives you the advantages of type checking but saves a superfluous
> prototype.
>
> 	Hannes
>
>   
Actually, Joe Perches, gave a good reason for using the MACRO #define 
method; so, this could really turn into an interesting discussion.
Pros and Cons are always interesting when there is more than one way to 
do something.

James


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 258 bytes --]