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: <ada3b1m87pa.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 May 2007 10:14:41 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
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?

 > A function only belongs into a header file if we always want it inlined, 
 > otherwise it belongs into a C file.

Again, why?  Why don't we trust the compiler to decide if a function
should be inlined or not, even if the definition happens to be in a .h
file?

It seems like a perfectly valid optimization for the compiler to only
emit code once for a function and then call it where it is used, even
if that function happens to be defined in a .h file.

 - R.
-
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/