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

Dirk Hohndel
2009-01-09T16:47:57Z

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:44:47 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, H. Peter Anvin 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
>
> The biggest problem is the <nothing>.
>
> The standard heuristics for that are broken, in particular for the
> "single call-site static function" case.
>
> If gcc only inlined truly trivial functions for that case, I'd
> already be much happier. Size be damned.

See my other email. Maybe we should just stop trusting gcc and annotate
every single function call.
Ugly, but effective.

/D

--
Dirk Hohndel
Intel Open Source Technology Center