On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >From compiler-gcc.h: > > > > > > #define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) > > > > So unless I am missing something obvious then each time we say inline > > to a function we require gcc to inline the function. > > > > It is my impression that today we only say inline if really needed and > > otherwise let gcc decide. So in almost all cases inlise should just be > > nuked? > > no, what we should nuke is this always_inline definition. That was > always the intention of FORCED_INLINE, and the removal of FORCED_INLINE > was to _remove the forcing_, not to make it unconditional. It was always unconditional, and neither adding, toggling nor removing of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING changed this invariant. And what we should do is to attack the excessive wrong usage of inlines in .c files, not messing with a global #define in a way that the results on 24 architectures with 7 different releases of gcc would be unpredictable. > so Adrian, if you knew about this bug all along, you might as well have > reported it :-/ http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/19/36 http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/9/363 are the result of a quick Google search of me stating this previously on linux-kernel. It might have been more often, but I'm too lame too search further. > Ingo cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
