On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 23:07:22 +0200 Michal Nazarewicz <min...@mina86.com> wrote:
> It appears that gcc is better at optimising a double call to min
> and max rather than open coded min3 and max3. This can be observed
> here:
>
> ...
>
> Furthermore, after ___make allmodconfig && make bzImage modules___ this is the
> comparison of image and modules sizes:
>
> # Without this patch applied
> $ ls -l arch/x86/boot/bzImage **/*.ko |awk '{size += $5} END {print size}'
> 350715800
>
> # With this patch applied
> $ ls -l arch/x86/boot/bzImage **/*.ko |awk '{size += $5} END {print size}'
> 349856528
We saved nearly a megabyte by optimising min3(), max3() and clamp()?
I'm counting a grand total of 182 callsites for those macros. So the
saving is 4700 bytes per invokation? I don't believe it...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
