lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-09 17:41    [W:3.089 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site