From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 23 23:11:30 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8CE5837B401; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6972343F93; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13196;
	Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:11:00 +1000
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:10:59 +1000 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>
In-Reply-To: <200307231715.31186.wes@softweyr.com>
Message-ID: <20030724160423.L3020@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <10036.1058870835@critter.freebsd.dk>
	<20030722235600.X8165@gamplex.bde.org>
	<200307231715.31186.wes@softweyr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com>
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/lnc if_lnc.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:11:31 -0000

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Wes Peters wrote:

> On Tuesday 22 July 2003 07:17, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > 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?

Removing the inline gives the same tiny cost as not doing it, except it
costs more in bogusness points (since the bogusness is in the source code
instead of in the compiler).

Bruce