From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 13:00:30 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 E448237B401; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7842843F75; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABB32A7EA; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -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" In-Reply-To: <23600.1058976911@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20030723200030.5ABB32A7EA@canning.wemm.org> cc: Paul Richards cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org 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 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:00:31 -0000 "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