Re: can someone explain "inline" once and for all?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:01:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
> > >routines in the kernel?  and maybe this can be added to the
> > >CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
> >
> > AFAIK __always_inline is the only reliable way to force inlining where
> > it matters for correctness (for example, when playing tricks with
> > __builtin_return_address like we do in the slab).
> >
> > Anything else is just a hint to the compiler that might be ignored if
> > the optimizer thinks it knows better.
>
> With the current implementation in the kernel (and considering that
> CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING was implemented in a way that it never had
> any effect), __always_inline and inline are currently equivalent.

right, and that last part explains that snippet i previously posted
from include/asm-alpha/compiler.h

========================
#ifdef __KERNEL__
/* Some idiots over in <linux/compiler.h> thought inline should imply
   always_inline.  This breaks stuff.  We'll include this file whenever
   we run into such problems.  */
========================

  which is a result of this from include/linux/compiler.h:

========================

#define inline          inline          __attribute__((always_inline))
#define __inline__      __inline__      __attribute__((always_inline))
#define __inline        __inline        __attribute__((always_inline))

which certainly seems to suggest that *ever* explicitly stating
"always inline" is redundant, no?  maybe i'm missing something
critical here but this just seems wrong.

> __always_inline is mostly an annotation that really bad things might
> happen if the code doesn't get inlined.

and that makes sense.  it has no effect, it's more for just
commenting.  but it's still kind of misleading.

rday
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/