linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [2.6 patch] include/asm-mips/processor.h: "extern inline" -> "static

To: "Ralf Baechle" <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] include/asm-mips/processor.h: "extern inline" -> "static inline"
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:40:40 +0200
Cc: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@stusta.de>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YVJxYIeZbkvacZoG90xuXspxONNKBAWU7H85In9nOq0GW+x0vV022nFWAYwCSuBrZBf81BqOAi1Waeb+Wvq5kAbejILBkEhD4Pq7TR1MjLr0fh7Jci22bRpPpY17yAuhYZMLz4sKEubL9v3MaHrSzBTY12EUxypLhILVE8O9TXA=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=q8bKoI5idmQw7i+e/gTMPOZbigyZLg1AhWxA5MKE/XvSl2Y8zeWE4jFKRZwKzAbKEvmMNTlzlvlvjJZC9DvWK0/mTNmAnJTXPTD9vlBaS0bxUmlQwk017Dh/MhHkoxJgqll0y+hh8naEy2N4h4Cs/JMCa8AlC+5UPis1kY+EICM=
In-reply-to: <20070709102754.GB24487@linux-mips.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20070707010330.GY3492@stusta.de> <20070709102754.GB24487@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Hi,

On 7/9/07, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 03:03:30AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> "extern inline" will have different semantics with gcc 4.3,
> and "static inline" is correct here.

The idea was to have a linker error in case gcc should deciede for some
reason not to inline this function which as I understand will continue
to be the behaviour of gcc 4.3?


I don't know for this peculiar case but it usually is a good thing to
let gcc decide if the function needs to be inlined or not.

If we really want this function to be inlined in all cases, maybe we
should use __always_inline attribute instead ?

--
              Franck

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>