On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:54:42AM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > On 10/06/2015 09:11 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > > But what's wrong with the GCC attribute mechanism? Surely GCC ought > > to be able to generate the code, at least in the simple cases, and the > > attribute already exists. The attribute and READ_ONCE_NOCHECK seem > > like the least messy in the C code. > > The problem with 'no_sanitize_address' attribute is incompatibility with > inlining. > GCC can't inline function with that attribute into function without it. > And the contrary is also true - GCC can't inline function without attribute > into function with such attribute. > > Failure to inline always_inline function leads to build failure.
So just don't do that? Don't set the attribute on functions marked inline. Where do you see this anyways? -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
