From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: gcc inlining heuristics was Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:54:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20090121085402.GD15750@one.firstfloor.org> References: <496BBE27.2020206@t-online.de> <20090119001345.GA9880@elte.hu> <20090119062212.GC22584@wotan.suse.de> <20090120005124.GD16304@wotan.suse.de> <20090120123824.GD7790@elte.hu> <1232480940.22233.1435.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <20090120210515.GC19710@elte.hu> <20090120220516.GA10483@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , David Woodhouse , Nick Piggin , Bernd Schmidt , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Harvey Harrison , "H. Peter Anvin" , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich , jh@suse.cz To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090120220516.GA10483@elte.hu> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org > GCC 4.3.2. Maybe i missed something obvious? The typical use case of restrict is to tell it that multiple given arrays are independent and then give the loop optimizer more freedom to handle expressions in the loop that accesses these arrays. Since there are no loops in the list functions nothing changed. Ok presumably there are some other optimizations which rely on that alias information too, but again the list_* stuff is probably too simple to trigger any of them. -Andi