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: <200705241255.07300.rob@landley.net>
Date:	Thu, 24 May 2007 12:55:06 -0400
From:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?

On Thursday 24 May 2007 8:38 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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.

Do we ever use the "register" keyword anymore?  I don't make "suggestions" to 
gcc, I hit it with a clue-by-by four.

> 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.

I'm actually trying to write documentation on it.  Temporary copy at:

http://landley.net/kdocs/inline.html

> regardless of its good or bad points, one way or the other, something
> should be updated.

I'd be happy to just figure out what the policy is.  It seems like 
the "inline" keyword should no longer be used, and either say __always_inline 
or leave it to the compiler.  If there's a good counter-argument, I'd love to 
hear it.

Rob
-
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ