[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux-2.6.13-rc7
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:07:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> IMO that's a question to rth: why do we really need to block always_inline
> on alpha?

Because I use "extern inline" in the proper way. That is, I have both
inline and out-of-line versions of some routines. These routines have
their address taken to be put into the alpha_machine_vector structures,
so we're guaranteed that they'll be out-of-line at least once.

But if you define inline to always_inline, the compiler complains when
its forced to fall back to the out-of-line copy. And rightly so -- the
feature was INVENTED for using compiler intrinsics that would in fact
not produce valid assembly unless certain parameters are constants.

I've complained about this before. You always-inline savages have
obsconded with ALL THREE inline keywords -- "inline", "__inline" and
"__inline__" -- so there is in fact no way to accomplish what I want.

So in a fit of pique I've locally undone not just one, but all of the
always-inline crap.

All that said, something's wrong if we couldn't generate an out-of-line
copy of kmalloc. The entire block protected by __builtin_constant_p
should have been eliminated. File a gcc bugzilla report.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-26 00:19    [W:0.062 / U:3.800 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site