Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:25:17 +0100 From: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/rp rp.c Message-ID: <20030723212516.GE90991@survey.codeburst.net> In-Reply-To: <24542.1058985134@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <XFMail.20030723142400.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <24542.1058985134@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:32:14PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <XFMail.20030723142400.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes: > > > >On 23-Jul-2003 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> phk 2003/07/23 11:03:23 PDT > >> > >> FreeBSD src repository > >> > >> Modified files: > >> sys/dev/rp rp.c > >> Log: > >> Undo single-intance inlining which is way above the comfort limit for GCC. > > > >Single instance inlining can not hurt. It can help by reducing call > >stack depth and code size however. I thought you were for reducing code > >size, not increasing it. Please use __always_inline to shut up gcc > >instead of de-inlining for single instance inlines. > > Please provide data showing actual improvement for inlining. > > If I changed this to __always_inline, I would change the code generated, > to start inlining these functions. We don't know the effect of that. > > Instead I preserve the status quo by removing the inline request which > GCC ignores. You're not preserving the status quo. You're preserving the *broken* behaviour of recent versions of gcc. This all worked fine until gcc broke and single-instance inlining is a perfectly valid programming practice for several reasons which have all been covered in this thread without you finding any counter argument and yet you're continuing to remove them. -- Paul.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030723212516.GE90991>