On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Harvey Harrison wrote: > >> > >> We might still try the second or third options, as i think we shouldnt go > >> back into the business of managing the inline attributes of ~100,000 > >> kernel functions. > > > > Or just make it clear that inline shouldn't (unless for a very good reason) > > _ever_ be used in a .c file. > > > > The question is if that would produce acceptable quality code. In > theory it should, but I'm more than wondering if it really will.
I actually often use noinline when developing code simply because it makes it easier to read oopses when gcc doesn't inline ever static (which it normally does if it only has a single caller). You know roughly where it crashed without having to decode the line number. I believe others do that too, I notice it's all over btrfs for example. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
