lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers
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?

inline's in .c files are nearly always wrong (there might be very few
exceptions), and this should simply be fixed.

Applying Arjan's uninlining patch [1] against 2.6.15-rc5-mm3 (ignoring a
few rejects at applying the patch), I'm getting more than 0.6% .text
savings (this is with a "compile everything .config", without
unit-at-a-time and with -Os).

> Ingo

cu
Adrian

[1] http://www.fenrus.org/noinline

--

"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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-31 15:40    [W:0.192 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site