Re: static functions are your friends (Was GPIO revisited)

[Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost>]

Am 09.08.2009 um 19:40 schrieb Matt Thomas:

> On Aug 9, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Marc Balmer wrote:
>
> > Am 09.08.2009 um 19:32 schrieb Matt Thomas:
> >
> > > On Aug 9, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Marc Balmer wrote:
> > > > We can consider this issue solved.  I can declare my functions as  
> > > > "__noinline static ...." and have both the benefits of a static  
> > > > declaration and the function name show up in ddb's 'trace' command.
> > > >
> > > > I will slowly convert my code to this idiom, if no one objects.
> > >
> > > Please only do that if neither DIAGNOSTIC nor DEBUG is defined.
> >
> > why do you suggest this?
>
> Because the kernel is supposed to fully optimized if neither of  
> those are present, even if it makes debugging harder.

I don't get it.  If DEBUG or DIAGNOSTIC is defined, I should avoid  
__inline to make sure ddb does not show the symbols?

This is getting more and more silly.

My functions will just be non-static as long as stupid gcc/ddb  
combination is not able to display function names in 'trace'.

Please fix ddb, but don't ask me to static my functions.  kthxbye