On 7/31/19 1:09 PM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:51 PM Richard Henderson > <richard.hender...@linaro.org > <mailto:richard.hender...@linaro.org>> wrote: > > On 7/31/19 10:57 AM, Jan Bobek wrote: > > +static inline void gen_gvec_cmpeq(unsigned vece, uint32_t dofs, > > + uint32_t aofs, uint32_t bofs, > > + uint32_t oprsz, uint32_t maxsz) > > +{ > > + tcg_gen_gvec_cmp(TCG_COND_EQ, vece, dofs, aofs, bofs, oprsz, > maxsz); > > +} > ... > > +static inline void gen_gvec_cmpgt(unsigned vece, uint32_t dofs, > > + uint32_t aofs, uint32_t bofs, > > + uint32_t oprsz, uint32_t maxsz) > > +{ > > + tcg_gen_gvec_cmp(TCG_COND_GT, vece, dofs, aofs, bofs, oprsz, > maxsz); > > +} > > Drop the inlines. > > > Why? The compiler will decide at the end of the day, but at least "inline" > here > says that the code author thinks that inlining is desirable, logical, and > expected > in these cases, which is in turn a valuable information for the code reader.
In this case it is in fact a lie that will only confuse the reader, as it did you. Functions whose address are passed as a callback, as these are, are always forced out of line. But beyond that, clang diagnoses unused static inline within *.c while gcc does not (I'm not sure I agree with clang, but it is what it is). By leaving off the inline, but compilers will diagnose when code rearrangement leaves a function unused. r~
