Re: const versus __attribute__((const))
From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa_at_zytor.com)
Date: 12/08/03
- Previous message: Nikita Danilov: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- In reply to: Nikita Danilov: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:31:17 -0800 To: Nikita Danilov <Nikita@Namesys.COM>
Nikita Danilov wrote:
> >
> > These functions are available to userspace, though, and can be compiled
> > with -O0; thus not inlined.
>
> And future versions of gcc can be smarter.
>
Actually, the reason it doesn't use it for the inlines is because it
doesn't need to -- it already has full visibility, so it doesn't need it
to be spelled out.
So it would be an issue if gcc got dumber, not smarter.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Nikita Danilov: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- In reply to: Nikita Danilov: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- Next in thread: Jamie Lokier: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- Reply: Jamie Lokier: "Re: const versus __attribute__((const))"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|