[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 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.

As far as bugs go - gcc -Os has also fixed bugs in the past. It doesn't
introduce bugs so much as change them. Fedora means we have good long
term data on -Os with modern gcc (not with old gcc but we just dumped <
3.2 anyway).

Nowdays the -Os code paths are also getting real hammering because many
people build desktops, even OpenOffice with -Os and see overall
performance gains for the system.


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 16:29    [W:0.135 / U:5.824 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site