Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 08:49:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de> wrote:
> 
> > What about the previous suggestion to remove inline from *all* static 
> > inline functions in .c files?
> 
> i think this is a way too static approach. Why go from one extreme to 
> the other, when my 3 simple patches (which arguably create a more 
> flexible scenario) gives us savings of 7.7%?

This point only discusses the inline change, which were (without 
unit-at-a-time) in your measurements 2.9%.

Your patch might be simple, but it also might have side effects in cases 
where we _really_ want the code forced to be inlined. How simple is it 
to prove that your uninline patch doesn't cause a subtle breakage 
somewhere?

inline's in .c files are nearly always wrong (there might be very few 
exceptions), and this should simply be fixed.

Applying Arjan's uninlining patch [1] against 2.6.15-rc5-mm3 (ignoring a 
few rejects at applying the patch), I'm getting more than 0.6% .text 
savings (this is with a "compile everything .config", without 
unit-at-a-time and with -Os). 

> 	Ingo

cu
Adrian

[1] http://www.fenrus.org/noinline

-- 

       "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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/