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

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
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/