Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:46:20 -0800 | From | Dirk Hohndel <> | Subject | Re: [patch] measurements, numbers about CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y impact |
| |
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:34:57 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > > 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.
Does gcc actually follow the "promise"? If that's the case (and if it's considered a bug when it doesn't), then we can get what Linus wants by annotating EVERY function with either __always_inline or noinline.
/D
-- Dirk Hohndel Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |