[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [31]   [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

* Adrian Bunk <> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Tim Schmielau <> 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?

it's quite simple: run the latency tracer with stack-trace debugging
enabled, and it will measure the worst-case stack footprint that is
triggered on that system. Obviously any compiler version change or
option change can cause problems, there's nothing new about it - and
it's not realistic to wait one year for changes like that. If you have
to wait that long, you are testing it the wrong way.

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: 2005-12-31 15:48    [W:0.288 / U:3.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site