https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66122
--- Comment #10 from Denis Vlasenko <vda.linux at googlemail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> If you expect that all functions with inline keyword must be always inlined,
> then you really should use __always_inline__ attribute. Otherwise, inline
> keyword is primarily an optimization hint to the compiler that it might be
> desirable to inline it. So, talking about uninlining or deinlining makes
> absolutely no sense,
Jakub, are you saying that compiling
static inline oid spin_unlock(spinlock_t *lock)
{
__raw_spin_unlock(&lock->rlock);
}
, where __raw_spin_unlock is a function (not macro), to a deinlined function
spin_unlock:
call __raw_spin_unlock
ret
and then callers doing
call spin_unlock
*can ever* make sense? That's ridiculous.
How about this?
static inline void atomic_inc(atomic_t *v)
{
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "incl %0"
: "+m" (v->counter));
}
You think it's okay to not inline one insn?
Kernel people did not take my patch which tries to fix this by __always_inining
locking ops. Basically, they think that compiler should not do stupid things.
