[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers
    On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 03:28:00PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
    > On Mer, 2005-12-28 at 20:11 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > If no-forced-inlining makes the kernel smaller then we probably have (yet
    > > more) incorrect inlining. We should hunt those down and fix them. We did
    > > quite a lot of this in 2.5.x/2.6.early. Didn't someone have a script which
    > > would identify which functions are a candidate for uninlining?
    > There is a tool that does this quite well. Its called "gcc" ;)
    > More seriously we need to seperate "things Andrew thinks are good inline
    > candidates" and "things that *must* be inlined". That allows 'build for
    > size' to do the equivalent of "-Dplease_inline" and the other build to
    > do "-Dplease_inline=inline". Gcc's inliner isn't aware of things cross
    > module so isn't going to make all the decisions right, but will make the
    > tedious local decisions.

    I'm not getting the point:

    Shouldn't "static" versus not "static" already give gcc everything it
    needs for making the decision?

    If stuff is cross-module (more exactly: cross-objects) it's not static
    and I doubt there are many (if any) cases of non-static code we want
    inline'd when used inside the file it's in.

    > Alan



    "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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-30 22:02    [W:0.021 / U:7.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site