Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:40 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> But if I remove the section completely by removing the >> pushsection/popsection, then copy_overflow() gets inlined. > >> So GCC's inlining decisions are somehow influenced by the existence of >> some random empty section. This definitely seems like a GCC bug to me. > > I think gcc uses the size of the string to approximate the size of an > inline asm. > > So I don't think it's the "empty section" that makes gcc do this, I think > it's literally "our inline asms _look_ big”.
I didn’t think about that. Playing with the code a bit more, it seems that it is actually related to the number of “new-lines” in the inline assembly. Removing 4 new-lines from _BUG_FLAGS (those that can be removed without breaking assembly) eliminated most of the non-inlined versions of copy_overflow(). Would it be reasonable to remove new-lines in such cases? Regards, Nadav
