Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:44:47 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact |
| |
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > As far as naming is concerned, gcc effectively supports four levels, > which *currently* map onto macros as follows: > > __always_inline Inline unconditionally > inline Inlining hint > <nothing> Standard heuristics > noinline Uninline unconditionally > > A lot of noise is being made about the naming of the levels
The biggest problem is the <nothing>.
The standard heuristics for that are broken, in particular for the "single call-site static function" case.
If gcc only inlined truly trivial functions for that case, I'd already be much happier. Size be damned.
Linus
| |