From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 14:25:21 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 E893C37B401; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0.freebsd-services.com (survey.codeburst.net [195.149.39.161]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8362943F3F; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:25:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul@freebsd-services.com) Received: by mx0.freebsd-services.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 305A21B211; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:25:17 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:25:17 +0100 From: Paul Richards To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20030723212516.GE90991@survey.codeburst.net> References: <24542.1058985134@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24542.1058985134@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/rp rp.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 21:25:21 -0000 On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:32:14PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , 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.