To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?
References: <200705231510.52932.rob@landley.net>
	<20070524171019.GA4470@stusta.de> <ada3b1m87pa.fsf@cisco.com>
	<200705241347.43727.rob@landley.net>
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:55:34 -0700
In-Reply-To: <200705241347.43727.rob@landley.net> (Rob Landley's message of "Thu, 24 May 2007 13:47:43 -0400")
Message-ID: <adahcq26r8p.fsf@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 944
Lines: 17

 > And if you #include a non-inlined definition in two .c files, the compiler 
 > will emit two copies into two separate .o files.  What you're hoping is that 
 > the linker will notice they're identical and merge them, and last I checked I 
 > couldn't even reliably get it to do that with constant strings.

No, I don't care if the linker merges it or not.  In fact I hope that
maybe the compiler is smart enough to optimize the function for the
sites it's called from in a particular .c file.

But a function defined in a .h file had better be static, so it
shouldn't matter if there are two copies of it in the final linked
image (any more than it matters if there are 100 inlined copies of it).
-
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/