Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 22/22] target/i386: reimplement (V)P(EQ, CMP)(B, W, D)

[Richard Henderson]

On 7/31/19 1:09 PM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:51 PM Richard Henderson <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> 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~