From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 22 16:12:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCED37B401; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godel.mtl.distributel.net (nat.MTL.distributel.NET [66.38.181.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB63543F75; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:12:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmilekic@technokratis.com) Received: from godel.mtl.distributel.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h6MJGMEH062222; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:16:22 GMT (envelope-from bmilekic@technokratis.com) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by godel.mtl.distributel.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6MJGMPF062221; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:16:22 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: godel.mtl.distributel.net: bmilekic set sender to bmilekic@technokratis.com using -f Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:16:22 +0000 From: Bosko Milekic To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20030722191622.GA61992@technokratis.com> References: <3F1DBD05.A4886D5E@imimic.com> <16119.1058914594@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16119.1058914594@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: "Alan L. Cox" cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Steve Kargl cc: Bruce Evans cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern init_main.c kern_malloc.c md5c.c subr_autoconf.c subr_mbuf.c subr_prf.c tty_subr.c vfs_cluster.c vfs_subr.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:12:21 -0000 On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:56:34AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: ... > I agree that there are exceptional cases, I agree that we need some > sort of __inline_damnit, but I still request that we only used it when > we know for a fact that there is an actual benefit. > > And the only two criteria I think are trivial to use for proving an > actual benefit is: > 1. less code is generated. > 2. it runs faster in tests. > > I am very reluctant to accept "a speculated benefit" when there is > as strong a counter indication as 2k extra code segment. What about the example I (and Bruce) posted in the other thread? That example does not necessarily meet your criteria but it certainly is valid as it minimizes code duplication and does not necessarily impact badly on performance (think of a case where the tradeoff between having it as a function call or inlined in a couple of places is evened out). > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@technokratis.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org TECHNOkRATIS Consulting Services * http://www.technokratis.com/