Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:39:26 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.6.8-rc1-mm1] drivers/scsi/sg.c gcc341 inlining fix |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Yeah, but doing: > > static inline foo(void); > > bar() > { > ... > foo(); > } > > static inline foo(void) > { > ... > } > > is pretty dumb too. I don't see any harm if this compiler feature/problem > pushes us to fix the above in the obvious way.
??? C does not require ordering of function _implementations_, except for this gcc brokenness.
The above example allows one to do what one normally does with non-inlines: order code to enhance readability, and the compiler will Do The Right Thing and utilize it in the best way the CPU will function.
Just because you stick a modifier on a function doesn't mean it's time to stop using C as it was meant to be used :)
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |