Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=yimpact

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:34:57 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> 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 (and I
> personally believe we should have a different annotation for "inline
> unconditionally for correctness" and "inline unconditionally for
> performance", as a documentation issue), but those are the four we
> get.

Does gcc actually follow the "promise"? If that's the case (and if it's
considered a bug when it doesn't), then we can get what Linus wants by
annotating EVERY function with either __always_inline or noinline.

/D 

-- 
Dirk Hohndel
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/