From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Cc: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 00:41:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070524224147.GF4470@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <adawsyy5azc.fsf@cisco.com>
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:32:07AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > The problem is that inline functions in headers are intended to be
> > called from different C files.
> >
> > gcc might not inline it in the C files where it is called more than
> > once.
> >
> > But it will always inline it if it's called only once.
> >
> > One of both will be suboptimal, but from gcc's perspective it was
> > optimal.
>
> Yes, we could probably get huge benefits from --combine and/or
> -fwhole-program to let gcc see more than one file at a time.
>
> But I still don't see the issue with having gcc do the best it can on
> each file it compiles. If you force the inlining, then that means
> that on files where not inlining was better, you've forced gcc to
> generate worse code. (I don't see how not inlining could be locally
> better on a single file but globally worse, even though it generated
> better code on each compiled file)
Can you give examples where for one function it differs between
different C files whether it should be inlined or not?
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-24 22:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-23 19:10 Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING? Rob Landley
2007-05-23 19:42 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-23 21:22 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-23 21:28 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 12:38 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-05-24 16:55 ` Rob Landley
2007-05-24 17:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:14 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 17:47 ` Rob Landley
2007-05-24 17:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 18:14 ` Rob Landley
2007-05-24 17:55 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 18:07 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 18:32 ` Roland Dreier
2007-05-24 22:41 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2007-05-24 17:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-23 21:31 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 17:12 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 16:29 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-24 17:14 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-05-24 17:17 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-05-24 17:40 ` Rob Landley
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=20070524224147.GF4470@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
--cc=rob@landley.net \
/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