From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jul 22 17:32:13 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 1355A37B404; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7537D43F93; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1606C2A8B2; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <16831.1058918630@critter.freebsd.dk> 
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:32:12 -0700
From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Message-Id: <20030723003212.1606C2A8B2@canning.wemm.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:49:39 -0700
cc: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com>
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com>
cc: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
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 <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:32:13 -0000

"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:

> That is the sort of thing which makes me belive that unless proven
> beneficial (by one of the two criteria), inline is harmful.

There is a great leap there.  Just because somebody isn't willing to spend
considerable time to re-prove that the runtime improvement is still there
to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean that it is harmful.

Take the i386 interrupt vector code.  Thats an example where it is massively
inlined.  Having a non-inlined function that does all the calculations
and bit shifting is much smaller in code size, but slower at runtime.

You have not proven your assertion that smaller code is implicitly faster.
It might be more convenient for you to measure, but it doesn't mean anything
without the same exhaustive runtime measurement that you would have us do.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5