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

From: Werner Almesberger (wa@almesberger.net)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 17:44:46 EST

Next message: Geoff Gustafson: "[ANNOUNCE] Open POSIX Test Suite"
Previous message: Stephen C. Tweedie: "Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: Htree ate my hard drive, was: post-halloween 0.2"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
Next in thread: Jussi Laako: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alan Cox wrote:
> gcc actually appears to know about that case for static functions.

Hmm. gcc 3.1 inlines functions even without being marked "inline"
when using -O3 or higher. It doesn't seem to special-case plain
"static", or even single-use "static".

Is gcc 3.2 better at this ?

-falways-inline-static-singletons would be kind of nice to have.

- Werner

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________________
 / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina         wa@almesberger.net /
/_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/
-
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: Geoff Gustafson: "[ANNOUNCE] Open POSIX Test Suite"
Previous message: Stephen C. Tweedie: "Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: Htree ate my hard drive, was: post-halloween 0.2"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Some functions are not inlined by gcc 3.2, resulting code is ugly"
Next in thread: Jussi Laako: "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 - 22:00:34 EST