Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:10:51 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 09:00 +0000, Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:56:26AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 08:53 +0000, Russell King wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 10:59:04PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 10:23:35PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > > > > > static void fn1(void *f) > > > > > { > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > void fn2(void *f) > > > > > { > > > > > fn1(f); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > on ARM produces: > > > > > > > > On 3.4, 4.0, and 4.1 you only need -O for this (I just checked both x86 > > > > and ARM compilers). I believe this came in with unit-at-a-time, as > > > > Arjan said - which was GCC 3.4. > > > > > > Well, as demonstrated, it doesn't work with gcc 3.3. Since we aren't > > > about to increase the minimum gcc version to 3.4, this isn't acceptable. > > > > s/isn't acceptable/is suboptimal/ > > No - it's a case of going overboard with this inline removal idea. > If we would prefer a function to be inlined because it is only used > once, we should specify it as such rather than relying on some quirky > idea that it _might_ do the right thing if we don't specify it
so for those gcc's one passes -finline-functions .... (or -finline-functions-called-once if it's supported, which newer gccs have again :)
- 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/
| |