On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > > I'm looking at it from a different angle, all code in the kernel should > > > follow the following rules [1]: > > > - no functions in .c files should be marked inline > > > - all functions in headers should be static inline > > > - all functions in headers should either be very small or collapse > > > to become very small after inlining > > > > > > I can simply not see any usecase for a non-forced inline in the kernel, > > > and fixing the kernel should give a superset of the space savings of > > > this "inline optimization". > > > > Your whole argument is premised on the assumption that the compiler does > > the right thing. > >... > > No, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. > > Status Quo as of 2.6.25: > - we force the compiler to always inline with "inline" What is wrong with that? I believe the term is 'directive'. > - we have inline's in .c files and too big functions in headers, and > both of them are wrong Yes, correct the source. > "inline optimization": > - we leave the compiler the choice whether or not to inline with "inline" How did it come to pass that we invented such a thing as an optional directive? -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
