Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jan 2006 15:28:03 -0500 | From | Jakub Jelinek <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers |
| |
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:41:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Where does this certainity come from? gcc-3.x (as well as 2.x) each had > > its own heuristics which functions should be inlined and which should not. > > inline keyword has always been a hint. > > NO IT HAS NOT. > > This is total revisionist history by gcc people. It did not use to be a > hint. If you asked for inlining, you got it unless there was some > technical reason why gcc couldn't inline it (ie recursive inlining, and > trampolines and some other issues). End of story.
One of the "technical reasons" was if the function was bigger than some threshold. And in that case I think it is ok to speak about inline keyword as a hint. The default inline limit (in rtx count after constant folding, but not other optimizations) was bigger than in the GCC 3.x era, sure, but there was a limit and GCC wasn't inlining functions bigger than that limit, even if they could be simplified due to constant arguments to something much smaller.
Jakub - 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/
| |