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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 18:29:39 +0200 (MEST) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> cc: 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 May 23 2007 23:22, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >And we need only two different inline levels (__always_inline and >"let the compiler decide"), not three (__always_inline, inline and >"let the compiler decide"). "inline" is "let the compiler decide". If it is not, then it is "let the compiler decide, based on my bias that I think it should be inlined". Jan -- - 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