Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] kill __always_inline | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:12:27 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 08:52, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:36:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote: > > > > > > An issue that we already discussed at 2.6.8-rc2-mm2 times: > > > > > > 2.6.9-rc1 includes __always_inline which was formerly in -mm. > > > __always_inline doesn't make any sense: > > > > > > __always_inline is _exactly_ the same as __inline__, __inline and inline . > > > > > > > > > The patch below removes __always_inline again: > > > > But what happens if we later change `inline' so that it doesn't do > > the `always inline' thing? > > > > An explicit usage of __always_inline is semantically different than > > boring old `inline'.
Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, but I thought always_inline was introduced because with some recent versions of gcc, inline wasn't doing the job (suspend2, which requires a working inline, was broken by it for example). That is to say, doesn't the definition of always_inline vary with the compiler version?
Regards,
Nigel
-- Nigel Cunningham Christian Reformed Church of Tuggeranong PO Box 1004, Tuggeranong, ACT 2901
Many today claim to be tolerant. But true tolerance can cope with others being intolerant.
- 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/
| |