On 2019-10-10 09:32:19, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > Hi Liming, Andrew, > > On 10/10/19 14:32, Liming Gao wrote: > > Laszlo: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 4:22 AM > >> To: Gao, Liming <liming....@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io; > >> af...@apple.com > >> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [Patch 05/12] MdePkg BaseIoLibIntrinsic: Remove > >> __inline__ attribute for IO functions > >> > >> On 10/08/19 16:47, Gao, Liming wrote: > >> > >>> [Liming] I verify GCC5 tool chain. I will verify GCC48/GCC49 and > >>> XCODE5. > >>> > >>> I don’t know the specific reason about __inline__. If there is no > >>> impact on > >>> > >>> other GCC tool chain, I prefer to remove them. > >> > >>> [Liming] This seems the remaining clean up task. So, I prefer to remove > >>> __inline__ if no impact on GCC tool chain. > >> > >> OK. Given your testing with GCC48, I'm fine. > >> > > With this patch set, I verify GCC48/GCC49/GCC5 on Ovmf3264. They can all > > boot to Shell. > > Are they enough? > > Would you guys agree with the following commit message, on this patch? > > """ > __inline__ has no discernible effect with the GCC48 / GCC49 / GCC5 > toolchains, but it breaks the build with CLANG9. > > Remove __inline__. > """
Would it be more accurate to say it didn't have a functional difference? Did we rule out that it might have made a difference in code gen? I guess I wouldn't be surprised if the older non-LTO toolchains didn't make use of it anyway. So, maybe there is no difference in code gen. With LTO the linker is hopefully smarter about auto-inlining anyhow. -Jordan -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#48853): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/48853 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/34309058/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
