Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:45:35 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers |
| |
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de> wrote: > > > > > What about the previous suggestion to remove inline from *all* static > > > inline functions in .c files? > > > > i think this is a way too static approach. Why go from one extreme to > > the other, when my 3 simple patches (which arguably create a more > > flexible scenario) gives us savings of 7.7%? > > This point only discusses the inline change, which were (without > unit-at-a-time) in your measurements 2.9%. > > Your patch might be simple, but it also might have side effects in > cases where we _really_ want the code forced to be inlined. How simple > is it to prove that your uninline patch doesn't cause a subtle > breakage somewhere?
it's quite simple: run the latency tracer with stack-trace debugging enabled, and it will measure the worst-case stack footprint that is triggered on that system. Obviously any compiler version change or option change can cause problems, there's nothing new about it - and it's not realistic to wait one year for changes like that. If you have to wait that long, you are testing it the wrong way.
Ingo - 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/
| |