From: Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>
To: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: syscall latency improvement #1
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 18:10:48 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020221071048.GA7127@amadeus.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18993.1011984842@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <200201281018.g0SAIIE22462@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <3C55282C.7D607CFB@zip.com.au> <200201290859.g0T8xGE26936@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
In-Reply-To: <200201290859.g0T8xGE26936@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
On 10:59 29 Jan 2002, Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> wrote:
| > - If a function has a single call site and is static then it
| > is always correct to inline.
I'm thinking: any decent compiler will inline this on its own, _without_
an inline keyword. So _don't_ use inline here.
| And what if later you (or someone else!) add another call? You may forget to
| remove inline. It adds maintenance trouble while not buying much of speed:
Indeed. And handled by the null case of "no inline" used above - the
compiler will get this right if you leave out the inline keywords,
while adding it causes the above issue.
| if func is big, inline gains are small, if it's small, it should be inlined
| regardless of number of call sites.
Wasn't that case #2? Inline when func < some small number of bytes?
--
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 cs@zip.com.au http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/
My father was a despatch rider during the last war. He rode BSAs but, for
reasons I still don't understand, he never bothered to tell me that they
were useless, unreliable piles of shit. - Grant Roff, _Two Wheels_ Nov96
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-21 7:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-25 18:54 [PATCH] syscall latency improvement #1 David Howells
2002-01-25 22:35 ` Robert Love
2002-01-26 10:07 ` Nigel Gamble
2002-01-25 23:07 ` Paul Mackerras
2002-01-26 0:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-26 0:57 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-26 1:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-01-26 4:00 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-01-28 14:18 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-01-28 10:30 ` Andrew Morton
2002-01-28 15:28 ` Jeff Dike
2002-01-29 0:53 ` Rusty Russell
2002-01-29 12:54 ` Pavel Machek
2002-01-29 12:59 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-02-21 7:10 ` Cameron Simpson [this message]
2002-01-26 18:39 ` Alan Cox
2002-01-27 19:59 ` Jamie Lokier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020221071048.GA7127@amadeus.home \
--to=cs@zip.com.au \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox