gcc-3.3 -> glibc-2.3.2 -> inlining failed warnings

Zack Winkles winkie at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed May 28 18:45:45 PDT 2003

Greg Schafer (gschafer at zip.com.au) wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 02:12:42PM -0400, Zack Winkles wrote:
> > I generally pass "-finline-limit=500000". Since glibc builds with -O2
> Wow, that is a "sledge hammer" approach if ever I've seen one. :-)

'Tis. But it works.... for me.

> > and not -O3, inlining with only occur on functions specifically marked
> > with 'inline', thus no major growth in the size of the resulting libs.
> Yeah but.. glibc has about 18 bazillion functions specifically marked as
> such.

I don't have the stats to prove it, I noticed that using my
'sledgehammer' only makes libc.so.6 grow by ~75kb.

> Not convinced.

I wasn't trying to convince you, just throwing out my little bit of info
for uhh.... no reason.  /me looks away.

> I found this in CONFORMANCE. Might be relevant. Dunno.
> "glibc's use of extern inline conflicts with C99: in C99, extern inline
> means that an external definition is generated as well as possibly an
> inline definition, but in GCC it means that no external definition is
> generated.  When GCC's C99 mode implements C99 inline semantics, this
> will break the uses of extern inline in glibc's headers.  (Actually,
> glibc uses `extern __inline', which is beyond the scope of the
> standard, but it would clearly be very confusing for `__inline' and
> plain `inline' to have different meanings in C99 mode.)"

That's wait over my head.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list