From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266687AbUGQNSR (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:18:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266705AbUGQNSR (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:18:17 -0400 Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de ([129.187.202.12]:61133 "HELO hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S266687AbUGQNSN (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:18:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:18:07 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Denis Vlasenko Cc: cramerj@intel.com, john.ronciak@intel.com, ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] e1000_main.c: fix inline compile errors Message-ID: <20040717131807.GD4759@fs.tum.de> References: <20040714210121.GN7308@fs.tum.de> <200407152326.40331.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> <20040715204935.GI25633@fs.tum.de> <200407160010.49701.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200407160010.49701.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 12:10:49AM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Thursday 15 July 2004 23:49, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:26:40PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > On Thursday 15 July 2004 22:46, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:13:59PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > > >... > > > > > As you go thru them, consider removing inline keyword for > > > > > such large functions. > > > > >... > > > > > > > > I did propose this as an alternative approach in the text that > > > > accopagnied the patch. > > > > > > > > My main reason for not directly proposing to remove the inlines was the > > > > fact that all inline functions were either very small or called only > > > > once. > > > > > > I think that large inlines with one callee is overoptimization > > > and should not be done. > > > > Unless I'm mistaken, it's simply equivalent to putting the code of the > > function at the place where the only call of the function currently is? > > > > Or is there an additional problem I miss? > > Yes. New gcc do that automagically for statics. > It'll never 'autoinline' function with multiple callers. >... But the way e1000_main.c is ordered, gcc can't inline such a function (due to -fno-unit-at-a-time, even gcc 3.4 cannot). > vda cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed