Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.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 Message-ID: <20030723200030.5ABB32A7EA@canning.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <23600.1058976911@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > In message <1058974459.31173.17.camel@localhost>, Paul Richards writes: > >On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 06:40, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >> > >> The ones I took out yesterday are the onces which GCC had ignored and > >> which therefore ipso facto were "unproven" _and_ added significant > >> amounts of object code if respected. > > > >That's just untrue. The inline you removed from lnc had *ZERO* impact on > >code size. > > It would _really_ help if you would bother to listen to what people > tell you about how the new GCC warnings work. ..IN THE NEW GCC VERSIONS. For gcc 2.x and earlier, inline did what the programmer told it. Most of the performance testing was done with gcc that did respect inline, and we're still trying to restore performance to that level. Its only since we switched to gcc-3.1 that the inlining has been silently broken. 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030723200030.5ABB32A7EA>