Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> There's none. In fact, it's wrong, unless you _also_ have an extern
> definition (according to the "new" gcc rules as of back in the days).
>
> Of course, as long as "inline" really means _always_ inline, it won't
> matter. So in that sense Ingo is right - we _could_. Which has no bearing
> on whether we _should_, of course.
>
I was thinking about experimenting with this, to see what level of
upside it might add. Ingo showed me numbers which indicate that a
fairly significant fraction of the cases where removing inline helps is
in .h files, which would require code movement to fix. Hence to see if
it can be automated.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
