On Sat, 2002-03-23 at 13:43, Jon Berndt wrote: > > I have to back off of the 15 minutes I quoted earlier -- that was > > running over NFS, and with other stuff hammering on the same drive. > > Still, it's quite clear that inlining is our problem here. The > > difference between inlined-but-optimized code and completely > > unoptimized code is only 13%, while the inlining takes a 300% (!!!) > > hit. > > > Tony - > > Did you come up with any recommendations on what we should do with inlining > given your test results?
Not really, I was just after trying to find out how much inlining is worth to us. It did look like we might benefit from un-inlining some of the tied methods, though I have not done enough testing to say that for sure. Unfortunately, I think un-inlining will mean providing moving the implementation of methods to the .cpp files, since the (I think) most compilers inline header-implemented functions by default. g++ definitely does. Doing this with a few at a time is no big deal -- doing this to the whole tree is not at all appealing. > > Jon > > > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Tony Peden [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know Linux is great ... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -- attributed to Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
