Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Tue, 01 May 2018 15:37:06 +0000 | Subject | Re: Suboptimal inline heuristics due to non-code sections |
| |
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:40 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> But if I remove the section completely by removing the > pushsection/popsection, then copy_overflow() gets inlined.
> So GCC's inlining decisions are somehow influenced by the existence of > some random empty section. This definitely seems like a GCC bug to me.
I think gcc uses the size of the string to approximate the size of an inline asm.
So I don't think it's the "empty section" that makes gcc do this, I think it's literally "our inline asms _look_ big".
Linus "does this section directive make me look fat?" Torvalds
| |