Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:47:28 -0800 | From | Dirk Hohndel <> | Subject | Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact |
| |
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:44:47 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > 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.
See my other email. Maybe we should just stop trusting gcc and annotate every single function call. Ugly, but effective.
/D
-- Dirk Hohndel Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |