On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:34:57 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As far as naming is concerned, gcc effectively supports four levels, > which *currently* map onto macros as follows: > > __always_inline Inline unconditionally > inline Inlining hint > <nothing> Standard heuristics > noinline Uninline unconditionally > > A lot of noise is being made about the naming of the levels (and I > personally believe we should have a different annotation for "inline > unconditionally for correctness" and "inline unconditionally for > performance", as a documentation issue), but those are the four we > get. Does gcc actually follow the "promise"? If that's the case (and if it's considered a bug when it doesn't), then we can get what Linus wants by annotating EVERY function with either __always_inline or noinline. /D -- Dirk Hohndel Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
