[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811141343510.30981@quilx.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:46:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING fun
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> What I was intending anyway, quite independently of the INLINING
> issue, was changing those and some others to VM_BUG_ONs, which are
> intended really for VM testers rather than for distros to turn on.
> (Though perhaps Nick has shifted his position on that.)
Some distros have a bad habit of turning these on for production releases.
> That is indeed the orthodoxy. I've never been so sold on it as most
> (there are cases when inlines give superior typechecking, but often
> the use of the macro will catch wrong types anyway). But I suspect
> it's irrelevant, that changing those functions to macros would not
> actually have any effect on the problem - that's what we've often
> been assured, anyway, that the compiler nowadays does inlines as
> efficiently as the preprocessor does macros. I do wonder though.
Maybe try to compare it with a old kernel that still has the page flags
macros? That way we would have a testcase useful for bringing to the
attention of the gcc people.
--
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