Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:32:18 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: GCC 3.4 and broken inlining. |
| |
Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 11:55:36PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote: > > > > > > I guess it could be readded if the inlining heuristics were fixed, > > > but even in gcc 3.5 it still looks quite bleak. > > > > It's very simple. For use in the kernel we don't *want* any inlining > > heuristics. What we want is: > > > > a) If the programmer says "inline", then inline it. > > The problem is that we have a lot of "stale" inlines. Inlines that > made sense a long time ago, but then people added a lot more code > to the function and it would be better to out line it again. > You should know, you seem to do this kind of out-lining most ...
We've already fixed zillions of those, and patches are accepted. I think someone wrote a tool to hunt those functions down, too.
> For those it may even make sense to let the compiler chose.
We can see how far that's getting us ;)
> > > > b) If the programmer didn't say "inline" then don't inline it. > > > > Surely it is not hard to add a new option to gcc to provide these semantics? > > That option is -O2 -Dinline="__attribute__((always_inline))" > But for some reason it was turned off for 3.4/3.5. >
Please tell me that was just a bug, and it will be fixed very soon. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |