Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932096AbVKJUn3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:43:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932095AbVKJUn3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:43:29 -0500 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:61956 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932096AbVKJUn1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:43:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:43:25 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: Oliver Neukum Cc: Matthew Dobson , Pekka J Enberg , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] Inline 3 functions Message-ID: <20051110204325.GG5376@stusta.de> References: <436FF51D.8080509@us.ibm.com> <200511101904.23114.oliver@neukum.org> <20051110182001.GF5376@stusta.de> <200511102022.52702.oliver@neukum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511102022.52702.oliver@neukum.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1845 Lines: 48 On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 08:22:52PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 10. November 2005 19:20 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:04:22PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 10. November 2005 18:38 schrieb Adrian Bunk: > > > > > So are you suggesting that we don't mark these functions 'inline', or are > > > > > you just pointing out that we'll need to drop the 'inline' if there is ever > > > > > another caller? > > > > > > > > I'd suggest to not mark them 'inline'. > > > > > > It seems you have found one more use for sparse. How about a tag > > > like __single_inline that will cause a warning if a function having it > > > is called from more than one place? > > > > Why should such a function be manually marked "inline" at all? > > > > If a static function is called exactly once it is the job of the > > compiler to inline the function. > > It should indeed. This documentation says it does: > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html > That makes me wonder what is the problem. On i386, we have the problem that we are using -fno-unit-at-a-time to avoid stack usage problems. But the proper solution will be to remove -fno-unit-at-a-time from the CFLAGS for gcc >= 4.1 or >= 4.2 and check whether this will cause any new stack usage problems. > Puzzeled > Oliver cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/