Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:31:33PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> What about performance reasons?
>> We habe "inline" code in header files that heavily relies on being nearly 
>> completely optimized away after being inlined.
>
> fair
>
>> Especially with -Os it could even sound logical for a compiler to never 
>> inline a non-forced "inline"'d three line function with 2 callers.
>
> but you said "I Care about size more than performance". Your argument is 
> thus absolutely incorrect.

Theoretically, you are right.

Practically, this would imply removing the CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE 
option several distributions currently enable by default since it has 
been shown that it often generates faster code...

>> The rules are simple:
>> - every static function in a header file must be __always_inline
>
> wrong.
>
>> Your suggestion is possible, but please also send a patch that turns every 
>> "inline" in header files into __always_inline...
>
> this is 1) insane and 2) if inlines in headers are so big gcc decides to 
> not inline them.. they're too big and don't belong in the header.

Exactly.

So there's no point in having a non-forced inline.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/