On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > - Perhaps we could introduce a name for the first category: __must_inline? > __should_inline? Not because it wouldnt mean 'always', but because it is > 'always inline' for another reason than the correctless __always_inline. I think you're thinking about this the wrong way. "inline" is a pretty damn strong hint already. If you want a weaker one, make it _weaker_ instead of trying to use superlatives like "super_inline" or "must_inline" or whatever. So I'd suggest: - keep "inline" as being a strong hint. In fact, I'd suggest it not be a hint at all - when we say "inline", we mean it. No ambiguity _anywhere_, and no need for idiotic "I really really REALLY mean it" versions. - add a "maybe_inline" or "inline_hint" to mean that "ok, compiler, maybe this is worth inlining, but I'll leave the final choice to you". That would get rid of the whole rationale for OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y, because at that point, it's no longer potentially a correctness issue. At that point, if we let gcc optimize things, it was a per-call-site conscious decision. Linus -- 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
