Messages in this thread | | | From | Denis Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly | Date | Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:20:25 -0200 |
| |
On 3 November 2002 14:21, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 15:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 04:14:26PM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > Here is the cure: force_inline will guarantee inlining. > > > > > > To use _only_ with functions which meant to be almost > > > optimized away to nothing but are large and gcc might decide > > > they are _too_ large for inlining. > > > > Well, you can as well bump -finline-limit, like > > -finline-limit=2000. The default is too low for kernel code (and > > glibc too). > > I would venture the reverse interpretation for modern processors, the > kernel inlines far far too much
I agree that there are far too many large inlines. But.
__constant_c_and_count_memset *has to* be inlined. There is large switch statement which meant to be optimized out. It does optimize out *only if* count is compile-time constant. -- vda - 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/
| |