public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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