On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 01:32:56PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > (+CC Changbin Du, Arnd Bergmann) > > > [...] > > This branch already added a couple of extra inline markers just to > > make code work reasonably. How many tens (or hundreds) got missed just > > because the build still works, but the lack of inlining means that we > > generate completely garbage code? > > > I do not have the exact number, but > my impression was "not so many". > > Changbin and Arnd might have better insight. > They were trying to eliminate potential problems beforehand. > > For example, > 7e17916b > 412dd15c > 08813e0e > Yes, the case is not so many. At the beginning, I also thought this could require incredible change. But after trying, just found it is not so bad. I have a couple of patches to fix the remaing warnings which adds 'inline' or '_init' markers for related functions. I promise that all warnings get fixed with new version. And since I only have coressponding setup to fully test x86 and ARM platform, I think we could make this new option depend on x86 or arm temparaly so untested platforms will not complain anymore. Linus, is this good for you? Thank you for revewing. > > > > > I'm going to skip this pull request. > > > > We have basically always required a certain level of competence from > > the compiler, and this basically says that the compiler can do stupid > > things and we'd have to fix those stupidities by hand. > > > > Linus > > > > -- > Best Regards > Masahiro Yamada -- Cheers, Changbin Du
