arch: x86: Inline direct ISR functions. #20447
Conversation
|
p.s. In the wake of all the FIXMEs in this PR, I think we should really re-assess the use of inline functions here; possible alternatives would be: 1) macros, 2) link-time optimisation |
stephanosio
force-pushed
the
resolve_gh_3056_x86
branch
from
4d8ece3 to
ada73c9
Compare
zephyrbot
added
area: X86
|
All checks are passing now. Tip: The bot edits this comment instead of posting a new one, so you can check the comment's history to see earlier messages. |
This commit inlines the direct ISR functions that were previously implemented in irq_manage.c, since the PR zephyrproject-rtos#20119 resolved the circular dependency between arch.h and kernel_structs.h described in the issue zephyrproject-rtos#3056. Signed-off-by: Stephanos Ioannidis <[email protected]>
stephanosio
force-pushed
the
resolve_gh_3056_x86
branch
from
ada73c9 to
2088f7b
Compare
Well, one of the reasons inlines are nice is because you get type safety...but since these APIs are not directly application facing I'm not opposed to this.
Yes definitely. I remember a few years ago we had a developer look into this but nothing came out of it. I think we could get some impressive footprint gains if we could get LTO working! |
This commit inlines the direct ISR functions that were previously
implemented in irq_manage.c, since the PR #20119 resolved the circular
dependency between arch.h and kernel_structs.h described in the issue
#3056.
Signed-off-by: Stephanos Ioannidis [email protected]