[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?
    On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:31:33PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    > Adrian Bunk wrote:
    >> What about performance reasons?
    >> We habe "inline" code in header files that heavily relies on being nearly
    >> completely optimized away after being inlined.
    > fair
    >> Especially with -Os it could even sound logical for a compiler to never
    >> inline a non-forced "inline"'d three line function with 2 callers.
    > but you said "I Care about size more than performance". Your argument is
    > thus absolutely incorrect.

    Theoretically, you are right.

    Practically, this would imply removing the CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE
    option several distributions currently enable by default since it has
    been shown that it often generates faster code...

    >> The rules are simple:
    >> - every static function in a header file must be __always_inline
    > wrong.
    >> Your suggestion is possible, but please also send a patch that turns every
    >> "inline" in header files into __always_inline...
    > this is 1) insane and 2) if inlines in headers are so big gcc decides to
    > not inline them.. they're too big and don't belong in the header.


    So there's no point in having a non-forced inline.



    "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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-05-24 19:15    [W:0.021 / U:34.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site