On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Harvey Harrison wrote:
>
> __needs_inline? That would imply that it's for correctness reasons.
.. but the point is, we have _thousands_ of inlines, and do you know which
is which? We've historically forced them to be inlined, and every time
somebody does that "OPTIMIZE_INLINE=y", something simply _breaks_.
So instead of just continually hitting our head against this wall because
some people seem to be convinced that gcc can do a good job, just do it
the other way around. Make the new one be "inline_hint" (no underscores
needed, btw), and there is ansolutely ZERO confusion about what it means.
At that point, everybody knows why it's there, and it's clearly not a
correctness issue or anything else.
Of course, at that point you might as well argue that the thing should not
exist at all, and that such a flag should just be removed entirely. Which
I certainly agree with - I think the only flag we need is "inline", and I
think it should mean what it damn well says.
Linus
--
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
