On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:59:41PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: T> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 12:27:47PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: T> A> >> > .. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a T> A> >> > lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the T> A> >> > Juniper way of doing things? T> A> >> T> A> >> That would definitely break Juniper as it doesn't give a stable T> A> >> ABI. T> A> >> T> A> >> I've suggested an approach that allows for both, but it was deemed T> A> >> unnecessary. The argument being that the function call overhead is T> A> >> negligible. T> A> >> T> A> >> We can always revisit that decision if needed... T> A> >> T> A> > T> A> > In my experience, function call overhead is anything but minimal, T> A> > especially on ARM platforms. T> A> T> A> Same on MIPS. T> T> And same on amd64. While benchmarking the counter(9), I even encountered T> artifacts when function call was faster than inline. T> T> Of course, function call shouldn't be via a pointer.
Sorry, I misunderstood the "anything but minimal" phrase. That's why my reply Adrian and Ian looks odd. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
