Re: Suboptimal inline heuristics due to non-code sections

[Nadav Amit]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:40 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> But if I remove the section completely by removing the
>> pushsection/popsection, then copy_overflow() gets inlined.
> 
>> So GCC's inlining decisions are somehow influenced by the existence of
>> some random empty section.  This definitely seems like a GCC bug to me.
> 
> I think gcc uses the size of the string to approximate the size of an
> inline asm.
> 
> So I don't think it's the "empty section" that makes gcc do this, I think
> it's literally "our inline asms _look_ bigâ.

I didnât think about that.

Playing with the code a bit more, it seems that it is actually related to
the number of ânew-linesâ in the inline assembly. Removing 4 new-lines from
_BUG_FLAGS (those that can be removed without breaking assembly) eliminated
most of the non-inlined versions of copy_overflow().

Would it be reasonable to remove new-lines in such cases?

Regards,
Nadav