From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 10:24:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch 14/44] generic hweight{64,32,16,8}() Message-Id: <200602011124.29423.ak@suse.de> List-Id: References: <20060201090224.536581000@localhost.localdomain> <200602011006.09596.ak@suse.de> <43E07EB2.4020409@tls.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <43E07EB2.4020409@tls.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michael Tokarev Cc: Akinobu Mita , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Richard Henderson , Ivan Kokshaysky , Russell King , Ian Molton , dev-etrax@axis.com, David Howells , Yoshinori Sato , Linus Torvalds , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Hirokazu Takata , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, Greg Ungerer , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, linuxsh-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linuxsh-shmedia-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, ultralinux@vger.kernel.org, Miles Bader , Chris Zankel On Wednesday 01 February 2006 10:26, Michael Tokarev wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 February 2006 10:02, Akinobu Mita wrote: > > > >>+static inline unsigned int hweight32(unsigned int w) > [] > > How large are these functions on x86? Maybe it would be better to not inline them, > > but put it into some C file out of line. > > hweight8 47 bytes > hweight16 76 bytes > hweight32 97 bytes > hweight64 56 bytes (NOT inlining hweight32) > hweight64 197 bytes (inlining hweight32) > > Those are when compiled as separate non-inlined functions, > with pushl %ebp and ret. This would argue for moving them out of line. -Andi