linux-kernel - Re: optimizing out inline functions

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <483DC28B.4060001@support.intcomgrp.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 May 2008 16:37:31 -0400
From:	James Kosin <jkosin@...a.intcomgrp.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: optimizing out inline functions

Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 02:51:02PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
>> In trying to remove some macros, I ran across another kernel style
<<--SNIP-->>
> With reference to a recent thread about kconfig
> I would prefer:
> static inline void some_debug_function(var1)
> {
> 	if (KCONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING) {
> 		something = var1;
> 		printk(some debug text);
> 	}
> }
> 
> 
> But we do not have KCONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING available
> so the second best is to use an empty function
> to keep the typechecking in place.
> 
> IIRC gcc optimize both away.

Another way would be to have:

static inline void some_debug_function(var1)
{
    #ifdef KCONFIG_DEBUG_SOMETHING
       something = var1;
       printk(some debug text);
    #endif
}

BUT, this probably violates some styling rules.

James
}
--
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/