-Winline option

[Ondřej Bílka]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:01:34AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 08:56 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > David Miller wrote:
> >> In this particular case the inline is in a header file to provide a
> >> function used by applications.
> > 
> > As I understand it <scratch_buffer.h> is a private header, not for use
> > by applications.  See, e.g.,
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-04/msg00047.html> where I ask
> > "These functions are all private to glibc, right?" and the followup
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-04/msg00067.html> where
> > Florian says "My concern was the internal ABI between libc and the NSS
> > modules."
> > 
> > If <scratch_buffer.h> is intended to be public then we have a problem,
> > as C99 frowns on public headers defining static inline functions for use
> > in application code.
> 
> It's not intended as a public header, not for the foreseeable future.
> The concern about unused static functions is still valid, though.
> 
> I think we either have to ban “inline” and use “__always_inline”
> exclusively where that makes sense, or drop -Winline.  As I said, the
> latter shouldn't be needed anymore because __always_inline failures are
> covered under -Wattributes.
> 
Agreed. Its known problem that gcc cannot handle macro-like inline
functions well so forcing always_inline is appropriate. gcc uses
heuristic that use function size as parameter regardless that it could
be almost optimized out when inlined.