On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:21:55 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If gcc did that then it would need to generate static instances of > > inlined functions within individual compilation units. It would be a > > disaster for the kernel. For a start, functions which are "inlined" in kernel > > modules wouldn't be able to access their static storage and modprobing > > them would fail. > > Do you expect a static inline function that lives in a header file and that > has a static variable in it to share that static variable over all instances > of that function in a program? Or do you expect the static variable to be > limited at the file level? Or just at the invocation level? I'd expect it to behave in the same way as it would if the function was implemented out-of-line. But it occurs to me that the modrobe-doesnt-work thing would happen if the function _is_ inlined anyway, so we won't be doing that. Whatever. Killing this many puppies because gcc may do something so bizarrely wrong isn't justifiable. -- 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
