Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > > Note that with most versions of gcc this is all a complete non-issue,
> > > as most versions of gcc will _always_ inline a function that the user
> > > has asked to be inlined. So the issue seldom actually comes up.
> >
> > I thought that 'extern inline' was in fact the intended usage. That way, if
> > gcc decides it's not going to obey our explicit instruction to inline a
> > certain function, we get to know about it.
>
> And what could we do about it? Basically nothing.
If gcc starts shouting:
somefile.c:1234: declared inline function 'serial_paranoia_check' is
somefile.c:1234: larger than 1k. Declining to honor the inline directive.
[...]
/tmp/cc39I5yn.o(.text+0x4): undefined reference to `serial_paranoia_check'
you'll get a pile of Email, so that you can decide what's wrong. I
thought that you thought that that was better than just having it
silently bloat enormously.
Roger.
--
** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
* Common sense is the collection of *
****** prejudices acquired by age eighteen. -- Albert Einstein ********
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
