From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Nov 28 20:52:10 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA27655
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 20:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA27650
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 20:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.3/8.6.9) id PAA13253; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:47:56 +1100
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:47:56 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199611290447.PAA13253@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: bde@zeta.org.au, phk@critter.tfs.com
Subject: Re: users of "ft" tapes, please test!
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>I have been thinking about un-inlining spls.  This saves 29K out of

>I generally use the rule of thumb that unless the text-size is
>smaller as a result, then inlining is wrong.

A good rule, I think.  Of course it is wrong if the code is in a tight
loop, but that isn't common.

I think the inlines for min(), etc. break this rule.  There aren't many
inlines that follow it.  E.g,. the inline spltty(), which is approximately
only 2 C instructions (save = cpl; cpl |= tty_imask;) is twice as large
as the non-inline version.

Bruce