On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 06:26:23PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: >> Hey, >> >> On 19 November 2015 at 18:24, Ville Syrjälä >> <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:59:10PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: >> >> +static inline const char * >> >> +intel_display_power_domain_str(enum intel_display_power_domain domain) >> > >> > It's still const. And I assume now we end up duplicating these strings >> > in every object file that calls this. Why don't you just remove the >> > "static" from the original? >> >> Right, 'unstatic' is what I meant. Dropping const wouldn't have been >> very clever. >> >> Surely gcc's DCE pass will trivially eliminate this? > > Dunno. But I rather dislike having code in headers anyway. Agreed, particularly for long ones like this. Please just drop the static. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
