On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:10:00 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > With gcc, you get one instance of the static variable from inside a static > (inline or outofline) function per .o file that invokes it, and these do not > merge even though they're common symbols. I asked around and the opinion > seems to be that this is correct C. I suppose it's the equivalent of cutting > and pasting a function between several files - why should the compiler assume > it's the same function in each? > OK, thanks, I guess that makes sense. For static inline. I wonder if `extern inline' or plain old `inline' should change it. It's one of those things I hope I never need to know about, but perhaps we do somewhere have static storage in an inline. Wouldn't surprise me, and I bet that if we do, it's a bug. -- 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
