Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:15:31 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/lnc if_lnc.c Message-ID: <200307231715.31186.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <20030722235600.X8165@gamplex.bde.org> References: <10036.1058870835@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030722235600.X8165@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 07:17, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > Paul Richards writes:
> > >
> > >Both of those functions were called from just one place, inside
> > > the interrupt handler. Is there any reason to not inline them?
> >
> > Yes, we need to get -Werror on the kernel again, and GCC whines
> > about ridiculously large functions.
>
> I think you mean "gcc emits the requested diagnostic about functions
> that it doesn't inline, whether they are large or small".
>
> Just turn off -Winline to not request this diagnostic.
>
> > Inline should not be used unless it has a measurable impact on
> > performance.
>
> Several places, including if_lnc.c, used __inline to get cleaner code
> at no cost in performance. Removing __inline adds a tiny cost.
Not if the compiler didn't actually *do* the inline, right?
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200307231715.31186.wes>