Me! I know, because I wrote it :-) My understanding of the GCC
documentation was that by doing it this way I would get the effect
of inlining the function everywhere it is possible to inline it,
but the function would still be emitted in locks.o in case some
weird usage meant that inlining couldn't occur. Am I wrong? Is this
a problem?
You have to code up a serious monster for gcc to not inline it when
optimizations are enabled (there are 200 line functions in the Sparc
ESP scsi driver which GCC inlines just fine, there are about 5 or 6 of
there which all get inlined into the interrupt service function, sick
and perhaps stupid, but an example that gcc is really good at this).
The rule of thumb is, if you think there is even a possibility that
your inline function is complex enough that gcc may toss trying to
inline it, rethink your inline function. ;-) Otherwise just assume gcc
will always get it and inline it properly, if for some reason it
doesn't some day, you'll get linker errors to wake you up to the fact
;-)
---------------------------------------------////
Yow! 11.26 MB/s remote host TCP bandwidth & ////
199 usec remote TCP latency over 100Mb/s ////
ethernet. Beat that! ////
-----------------------------------------////__________ o
David S. Miller, davem@caip.rutgers.edu /_____________/ / // /_/ ><