Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: A patch for linux 2.1.127 | Date | Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:39:14 -0600 (EST) | From | kwrohrer@ce ... |
| |
And lo, David S. Miller saith unto me: > > Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:21:39 -0800 (PST) > From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> > > How about something simple like: > > if (SMALL_REGISTER_SET) > never_inline_functions_unless_the_user_asked_for_it(); > > which means that even with -O6 you would not inline functions > unless they were marked inline. > > I think I'd rather tell people "don't compile the kernel with -O6" > than turn off -finline-functions for -O6 by default on any machine. > Why not just recommend "-O6 -fno-inline-functions" like we did with the strength reduction bug? (Insert the right switch to disable the aggressive inlining of -O6 but not disable explicitly requested inlining here...and in the compiler code, if it's not there already.)
Maybe even add a "-OK" or "-OL" optimization level for code which has already been hand-optimized in these ways? Of course, we'd also want to just use -O6 for code that has not been so heavily optimized vis a vis inlining on Intel.
Keith
-- "The avalanche has already started; |Linux: http://www.linuxhq.com |"Zooty, it is too late for the pebbles to |KDE: http://www.kde.org | zoot vote." Kosh, "Believers", Babylon 5 |Keith: kwrohrer@enteract.com | zoot!" www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html |http://www.enteract.com/~kwrohrer | --Rebo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |