Nadav Amit <na...@vmware.com> wrote: > Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:40 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> But if I remove the section completely by removing the >>> pushsection/popsection, then copy_overflow() gets inlined. >> >>> So GCC's inlining decisions are somehow influenced by the existence of >>> some random empty section. This definitely seems like a GCC bug to me. >> >> I think gcc uses the size of the string to approximate the size of an >> inline asm. >> >> So I don't think it's the "empty section" that makes gcc do this, I think >> it's literally "our inline asms _look_ big”. > > I didn’t think about that. > > Playing with the code a bit more, it seems that it is actually related to > the number of “new-lines” in the inline assembly. Removing 4 new-lines from > _BUG_FLAGS (those that can be removed without breaking assembly) eliminated > most of the non-inlined versions of copy_overflow(). > > Would it be reasonable to remove new-lines in such cases?
My bad. It’s not the new-line. Let me do some more digging. Nadav
