Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 May 2007 19:12:54 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING? |
| |
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:31:33PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >> What about performance reasons? >> We habe "inline" code in header files that heavily relies on being nearly >> completely optimized away after being inlined. > > fair > >> Especially with -Os it could even sound logical for a compiler to never >> inline a non-forced "inline"'d three line function with 2 callers. > > but you said "I Care about size more than performance". Your argument is > thus absolutely incorrect.
Theoretically, you are right.
Practically, this would imply removing the CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE option several distributions currently enable by default since it has been shown that it often generates faster code...
>> The rules are simple: >> - every static function in a header file must be __always_inline > > wrong. > >> Your suggestion is possible, but please also send a patch that turns every >> "inline" in header files into __always_inline... > > this is 1) insane and 2) if inlines in headers are so big gcc decides to > not inline them.. they're too big and don't belong in the header.
Exactly.
So there's no point in having a non-forced inline.
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/
| |