On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'm looking at it from a different angle, all code in the kernel should 
> > > follow the following rules [1]:
> > > - no functions in .c files should be marked inline
> > > - all functions in headers should be static inline
> > > - all functions in headers should either be very small or collapse
> > >   to become very small after inlining
> > > 
> > > I can simply not see any usecase for a non-forced inline in the kernel,
> > > and fixing the kernel should give a superset of the space savings of 
> > > this "inline optimization".
> > 
> > Your whole argument is premised on the assumption that the compiler does 
> > the right thing.
> >...
> 
> No, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying.
> 
> Status Quo as of 2.6.25:
> - we force the compiler to always inline with "inline"

What is wrong with that?  I believe the term is 'directive'.

quoted text
> - we have inline's in .c files and too big functions in headers, and
>   both of them are wrong

Yes, correct the source.

quoted text
> "inline optimization":
> - we leave the compiler the choice whether or not to inline with "inline"

How did it come to pass that we invented such a thing as an optional
directive?

	-Mike

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/