On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 03:00:51AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > Without inlining the maxmimum stack usage inside foobar() is
> > max(stack usage foo(), stack usage bar()). [1]
>
> It's a little more complicated. gcc 4.x (not sure which x, might 0)
> is clever enough to not use max() stack, but only use the stack for the
> different scopes as needed similar as when the calls weren't inlined.
> But gcc 3 didn't do that.
That's roughly what I wanted to say.
> > With foo() and bar() inlined (-funit-at-a-time also enables
> > -finline-functions-called-once), the maxmimum stack usage inside
> > foobar() is sum(stack usage foo(), stack usage bar()). And this
> > worst case is the area where gcc 4 is much better than gcc 3.4.
>
> Yes exactly. If the functions weren't inlined the problem wouldn't
> occur because the stack sizes do not add up in the same dynamic call chain.
> Thus a few statetic noinlines will fix it.
And we are back at my main point that risking regressions for getting
better code with some ancient compiler isn't worth it.
Plus the fact that noinline's might result in slightly worse code with
current compilers.
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
