linux-kernel - Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4654B2B5.4080207@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2007 14:31:33 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
CC:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> What about performance reasons?
> We habe "inline" code in header files that heavily relies on being 
> nearly completely optimized away after being inlined.

fair

> Especially with -Os it could even sound logical for a compiler to never 
> inline a non-forced "inline"'d three line function with 2 callers.

but you said "I Care about size more than performance". Your argument 
is thus absolutely incorrect.

> The rules are simple:
> - every static function in a header file must be __always_inline

wrong.

> 
> Your suggestion is possible, but please also send a patch that turns 
> every "inline" in header files into __always_inline...

this is 1) insane and 2) if inlines in headers are so big gcc decides 
to not inline them.. they're too big and don't belong in the header.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/