Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-60710-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 12:14:36 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>
Cc: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] tools/nolibc: Fix strlcpy() return code and size
 usage
Message-ID: <20240211111436.GD19364@1wt.eu>
References: <20240129141516.198636-1-rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>
 <20240129141516.198636-4-rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar>
 <20240211110814.GB19364@1wt.eu>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240211110814.GB19364@1wt.eu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)

On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 12:08:14PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> And I think we should explicitly mark
> strlen() and the few other ones we're marking weak as noinline so that
> the compiler perfers a call there to inlining.

So actually the weak argument always prevents inlining from happening
so this is not needed (I didn't have it in my previous test).

Willy