Sorry if I'm in the wrong by cross-posting to both of these lists, but I think it's applicable as I'm a kernel newbie, and this may be a potential janitor task. I was looking at the message on linux kernel with regards to kernel debuggers, and came across: http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0203.3/0985.html =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) Date: Fri Mar 29 2002 - 23:25:53 EST From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:24:05 -0800 I *have* had problems with -fno-inline. I'd very much like to be able to turn that on, but the presence of `extern inline' functions causes a link failure with `-fno-inline'. Feel free to submit the patch that converts the remaining extern inline into static inline. That is the correct solution. GCC has every right not to inline and expect the function name to be referencable externally if you say extern inline, so this is another reason to fix the remaining extern inline instances. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Does this imply that it is ALWAYS better to use "static inline" instead of "extern inline"? According to this: http://linux-study.cs.ccu.edu.tw/HyperNews/get/gcc/2.html "extern inline is almost always the wrong thing". So should the kernel source be changed to read "static inline" everywhere where it used to be "extern inline"? -michael -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
