Re: -fobey-inline (was Re: gcc and inlining)

[Lars Segerlund <lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se>]

 Please, this is getting tiresome, I agree with Steven, this is needed, 
otherwise it'll be a case of 'you can't build a linux kernel without a 
patch to gcc'

 If this is not working or any similar mechanism, it will make those of 
us using this sort of functionality bear the burden of replacing large 
sections of code with macros.

 It has been repeatedly requested, and surely it's not resonable to 
argue with fx. kernel developers who says thar they REALLY need this ?

 Are there any arguments against this other than ideological ? ( this 
flag doesn't interfere with gcc's normal operation and only when it's 
needed is it in effect, how can that be so bad ? ).

 / Lars Segerlund.

Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > Richard Earnshaw writes:
> > > > 
> > > > -fobey-inline is more of a correctness issue than a performance issue
> > > > for the people who need it.
> > > 
> > > No, it's a compile my buggy program issue.
> > > 
> > > There is no guarantee in the standard that an "inline" function will be 
> > > inlined.
> >
> > Yes, but there are places where being able to guarantee inlining are
> > very useful.  glibc has one in the shared library loader, and there
> > are places in a kernel where it is essential to inline (perhaps
> > because there is no stack) but people are forced to use macros if
> > inlining is not guaranteed.  macros are bad for a bunch of reasons,
> > not the least of which is type safety.
>
>
> And we have an attribute (always_inline) for that case.  We don't need 
> another method as well.
>
> R.