From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:51:33 -0800 Message-ID: <49678095.2030803@zytor.com> References: <20090108141808.GC11629@elte.hu> <1231426014.11687.456.camel@twins> <1231434515.14304.27.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <496648C7.5050700@zytor.com> <20090109130057.GA31845@elte.hu> <49675920.4050205@hp.com> <20090109153508.GA4671@elte.hu> <49677CB1.3030701@zytor.com> <20090109084620.3c711aad@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Ingo Molnar , jim owens , Linus Torvalds , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Dirk Hohndel Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090109084620.3c711aad@infradead.org> List-ID: Dirk Hohndel wrote: > > 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. > __always_inline and noinline does work. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.