(I'm not subscribed so please CC me replies that you want me to reply
to.)
Recently I've found a problem with emacs where gcc optimizes a
function to be inline where it shouldn't be. The emacs developers use
a macro like this:
#define NO_INLINE __attribute__((noinline))
that would normally work fine but when we compile the file with
NO_INLINE, the -E output looks like:
static void __attribute__(())
x_error_quitter (display, error)
Display *display;
XErrorEvent *error;
{
char buf[256], buf1[356];
...etc
I've realized that this file includes linux/compiler.h which does:
139
140 #ifndef noinline
141 #define noinline
142 #endif
143
which causes __atribute__((noinline)) to change into
__attribute__(()). I'm not sure how linux developers keep a function
from getting inlined, but I'm hoping someone will consider removing or
changing this macro.
Timmy Douglas wrote:
> (I'm not subscribed so please CC me replies that you want me to reply
> to.)
>
> Recently I've found a problem with emacs where gcc optimizes a
> function to be inline where it shouldn't be. The emacs developers use
> a macro like this:
>
> #define NO_INLINE __attribute__((noinline))
>
> that would normally work fine but when we compile the file with
> NO_INLINE, the -E output looks like:
>
> static void __attribute__(())
> x_error_quitter (display, error)
> Display *display;
> XErrorEvent *error;
> {
> char buf[256], buf1[356];
>
> ...etc
>
>
> I've realized that this file includes linux/compiler.h which does:
>
>
> 139
> 140 #ifndef noinline
> 141 #define noinline
> 142 #endif
> 143
>
> which causes __atribute__((noinline)) to change into
> __attribute__(()). I'm not sure how linux developers keep a function
> from getting inlined, but I'm hoping someone will consider removing or
> changing this macro.
The right question to be asking is why is emacs including kernel headers?
--
Brian Gerst
Brian Gerst <[email protected]> writes:
> Timmy Douglas wrote:
>> (I'm not subscribed so please CC me replies that you want me to reply
>> to.)
>> Recently I've found a problem with emacs where gcc optimizes a
>> function to be inline where it shouldn't be. The emacs developers use
>> a macro like this:
>>[snip]
>> I've realized that this file includes linux/compiler.h which does:
>> 139
>> 140 #ifndef noinline
>> 141 #define noinline
>> 142 #endif
>> 143
>>[snip]
>
> The right question to be asking is why is emacs including kernel headers?
I'm guessing it goes sort of like this:
signal.h -> bits/sigcontext.h -> asm/sigcontext.h -> linux/compiler.h
On May 4, 2005, at 14:10:21, Timmy Douglas wrote:
> I'm guessing it goes sort of like this:
>
> signal.h -> bits/sigcontext.h -> asm/sigcontext.h -> linux/compiler.h
Installing headers directly from the kernel has been deprecated for
quite a while. Please look for the "linux-kernel-headers" package in
whatever your package management system is. It has a set of cleaned
headers. IIRC, there were some proposals a while back for how to fix
this and make a set of headers useable from userspace, but nothing
substantial ever got done.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$
r !y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Kyle Moffett <[email protected]> writes:
> On May 4, 2005, at 14:10:21, Timmy Douglas wrote:
>> I'm guessing it goes sort of like this:
>>
>> signal.h -> bits/sigcontext.h -> asm/sigcontext.h -> linux/compiler.h
>
> Installing headers directly from the kernel has been deprecated for
> quite a while. Please look for the "linux-kernel-headers" package
> in whatever your package management system is. It has a set of
> cleaned headers. IIRC, there were some proposals a while back for
> how to fix this and make a set of headers useable from userspace,
> but nothing substantial ever got done.
Thanks for the input. It seems this is a gentoo bug then because it
leaves this #define in their version of the source (even though it
removes some other things). I don't see this problem on a debian box I
have though. Too bad this wasn't standardized on.
Thanks again.