[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705240836340.4500@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:38:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > - every static function in a header file must be __always_inline
>
> Why? Why does it matter whether a function is defined in a .h file or
> a .c file? Can't the compiler decide better than we can whether
> something should be inlined or not?
>
> Your argument seems to imply that we should never use the inline
> keyword at all.
i hate to be in the middle of one of these again, but i think i
initiated this topic way back when when i (like rob landley) asked why
that config option was still around when it's been listed for deletion
for a year.
regardless of its good or bad points, one way or the other, something
should be updated.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists