Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:34:57 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > > My goal is to make the kernel smaller and faster, and as far as the > placement of 'inline' keywords goes, i dont have too strong feelings about > how it's achieved: they have a certain level of documentation value > [signalling that a function is _intended_ to be lightweight] but otherwise > they are pretty neutral attributes to me. >
As far as naming is concerned, gcc effectively supports four levels, which *currently* map onto macros as follows:
__always_inline Inline unconditionally inline Inlining hint <nothing> Standard heuristics noinline Uninline unconditionally
A lot of noise is being made about the naming of the levels (and I personally believe we should have a different annotation for "inline unconditionally for correctness" and "inline unconditionally for performance", as a documentation issue), but those are the four we get.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |