Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Tobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I don't think so - it is a question which way we code the source:
> >>
> >> A. Use 'inline' every where and trust compiler not to do what we told it
> >> if it knows better.
> >> B. No inline hints in the source and trust the compiler to be able to
> >> do the right thing when prodded with -O9 or whatever.
> >> C. Make "informed" guesses at to which calls should be inlined.
> >>
> >> My view is that (B) is the way to go, aiming for (C) eventually, because
> >> (A) gives worst-case cache purging.
> >
> >There doesn't have to be an 'eventually'. We can have (C) now.
>
> Then you know perl's execution profile a lot better than I do ;-)
> Pop Quiz:
Please read everything before replying to anything. :-)
> >Moving from a first-guess (C) to an optimal (C) (where we make
> >reasonable hints all the time, no doubt with the aid of some Configure
> >tests or machine-dependent conditionals) can be an ongoing pursuit.
--
John Tobey, late nite hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
\\\ ///
]]] With enough bugs, all eyes are shallow. [[[
/// \\\
