[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080303224231.86c22ed0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 22:42:31 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
astarikovskiy@...e.de, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: phase out forced inlining
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:13:35 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> +config OPTIMIZE_INLINING
> + bool "Allow gcc to uninline functions marked 'inline'"
> + default y
> + help
> + This option determines if the kernel forces gcc to inline the functions
> + developers have marked 'inline'. Doing so takes away freedom from gcc to
> + do what it thinks is best, which is desirable for the gcc 3.x series of
> + compilers. The gcc 4.x series have a rewritten inlining algorithm and
> + disabling this option will generate a smaller kernel there. Hopefully
> + this algorithm is so good that allowing gcc4 to make the decision can
> + become the default in the future, until then this option is there to
> + test gcc for this.
urgh. This will cause whatever problem
4507a6a59cfc6997e532cd812a8bd244181e6205 fixed five years ago to resurface
for incautious gcc-3.x users.
I'd suggest that this
> +#ifndef CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING
become something along the lines of
> +#ifndef CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING && (__GNUC__ > 3)
It would be nice to be able to feed the gcc version into the Kconfig logic,
really..
--
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