[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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:0.077 / U:18.588 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site