On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:26:41PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > - Unconditionally have 'inline' meaning 'always_inline'. If we say it, > we should mean it. > > - Resist the temptation to use -fno-inline-functions. Allow GCC to > inline other things if it wants to.
The proposal was to use -fno-inline-functions-called-once (but the resulting numbers were not promising) We've never allowed gcc to inline any other functions not marked inline explicitely because that's not included in -O2. > - Reduce the number of unnecessary 'inline' markers, and have a policy > that the use of 'inline' should be accompanied by either a GCC PR# > or an explanation of why we couldn't reasonably have expected GCC to > get this particular case right. > > - Have a similar policy of PR# or explanation for 'uninline' too. > > I don't think we should just give up on GCC ever getting it right. That > way lies madness. As we've often found in the past. It sounds like you're advocating to set -O3/-finline-functions by default. Not sure that's a good idea. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
