Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly

• Next message: Patrick Finnegan: "Re: Filesystem Capabilities in 2.6?"
• Previous message: Kronos: "Re: [2.5.45] CDRW not working"
• In reply to: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
• Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 04:14:26PM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> Here is the cure: force_inline will guarantee inlining.
>
> To use _only_ with functions which meant to be almost
> optimized away to nothing but are large and gcc might decide
> they are _too_ large for inlining.

Well, you can as well bump -finline-limit, like -finline-limit=2000.
The default is too low for kernel code (and glibc too).

        Jakub
-
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/

• Next message: Patrick Finnegan: "Re: Filesystem Capabilities in 2.6?"
• Previous message: Kronos: "Re: [2.5.45] CDRW not working"
• In reply to: Denis Vlasenko: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
• Reply: Alan Cox: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:29 EST