Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:41:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Where does this certainity come from?  gcc-3.x (as well as 2.x) each had
> > its own heuristics which functions should be inlined and which should not.
> > inline keyword has always been a hint.
> 
> NO IT HAS NOT.
> 
> This is total revisionist history by gcc people. It did not use to be a 
> hint. If you asked for inlining, you got it unless there was some 
> technical reason why gcc couldn't inline it (ie recursive inlining, and 
> trampolines and some other issues). End of story. 

One of the "technical reasons" was if the function was bigger than some
threshold.  And in that case I think it is ok to speak about inline keyword
as a hint.  The default inline limit (in rtx count after constant folding,
but not other optimizations) was bigger than in the GCC 3.x era, sure, but
there was a limit and GCC wasn't inlining functions bigger than that limit,
even if they could be simplified due to constant arguments to something
much smaller.

	Jakub
-
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/