Re: [2.6 patch] kill __always_inline

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@linuxmail.org>]

Hi.

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 08:52, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:36:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > An issue that we already discussed at 2.6.8-rc2-mm2 times:
> > > 
> > > 2.6.9-rc1 includes __always_inline which was formerly in  -mm.
> > > __always_inline doesn't make any sense:
> > > 
> > > __always_inline is _exactly_ the same as __inline__, __inline and inline .
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The patch below removes __always_inline again:
> > 
> > But what happens if we later change `inline' so that it doesn't do
> > the `always inline' thing?
> > 
> > An explicit usage of __always_inline is semantically different than
> > boring old `inline'.

Excuse me if I'm being ignorant, but I thought always_inline was
introduced because with some recent versions of gcc, inline wasn't doing
the job (suspend2, which requires a working inline, was broken by it for
example). That is to say, doesn't the definition of always_inline vary
with the compiler version?

Regards,

Nigel

-- 
Nigel Cunningham
Christian Reformed Church of Tuggeranong
PO Box 1004, Tuggeranong, ACT 2901

Many today claim to be tolerant. But true tolerance can cope with others
being intolerant.