Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:18:07 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] e1000_main.c: fix inline compile errors |
| |
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 12:10:49AM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Thursday 15 July 2004 23:49, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:26:40PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > On Thursday 15 July 2004 22:46, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:13:59PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > > >... > > > > > As you go thru them, consider removing inline keyword for > > > > > such large functions. > > > > >... > > > > > > > > I did propose this as an alternative approach in the text that > > > > accopagnied the patch. > > > > > > > > My main reason for not directly proposing to remove the inlines was the > > > > fact that all inline functions were either very small or called only > > > > once. > > > > > > I think that large inlines with one callee is overoptimization > > > and should not be done. > > > > Unless I'm mistaken, it's simply equivalent to putting the code of the > > function at the place where the only call of the function currently is? > > > > Or is there an additional problem I miss? > > Yes. New gcc do that automagically for statics. > It'll never 'autoinline' function with multiple callers. >...
But the way e1000_main.c is ordered, gcc can't inline such a function (due to -fno-unit-at-a-time, even gcc 3.4 cannot).
> vda
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |