Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact

Dirk Hohndel
2009-01-09T16:46:20Z

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:34:57 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> 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