[PATCH] Revert commit 05a910f7

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> wrote:
> H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Why do we want to remove  <bits/string2.h>?  Shouldn't inline mempcpy
>>>> be there?
>>>
>>> Currently bits/string2.h is a huge mess without being beneficial (quite a few of
>>> the inlines are not useful or even detrimental to performance).
>>> Once bits/string2.h is cleaned up and included unconditionally, what's the
>>> difference between placing any remaining useful inlines in string2.h or string.h?
>>
>> Smaller header files? Why did we have string2.h to begin with?
>
> Yes, string2.h is quite huge today, but it won't be when I'm finished with the cleanup.
>
>

Wouldn't it be easier to review your change if you break it down into
one inline function cleanup in one patch?

-- 
H.J.