On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:44:47 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin 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 > > The biggest problem is the <nothing>. > > The standard heuristics for that are broken, in particular for the > "single call-site static function" case. > > If gcc only inlined truly trivial functions for that case, I'd > already be much happier. Size be damned. See my other email. Maybe we should just stop trusting gcc and annotate every single function call. Ugly, but effective. /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
