On 27 April 2013 09:06, Kenneth R Westerback <kwesterb...@rogers.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: >> >> > Hey all, >> > >> > Time for attempt #2! >> > >> > Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better >> > detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes it easier for >> > the compiler to optimize; e.g., since it knows a function will only >> > called once it can inline code; or not output a symbol for a certain >> > function. >> >> In general we don't lik this because it makes things harder to debug. >> For libraries, yes, but for programs, no. >> >> -Otto > > +1. We see way more 'nuke stupid static crap' diffs that 'add static' > diffs. We are even dubious about almost all inline functions since > they are also harder to debug and (on most 'modern' archs) add > little if any performance but do make executables bigger. Just in > case you have a 'use inline functions to speed things up just like > XBSD' diff in the queue, and were about to hit another sensitive > button issue. :-)
Most of my diffs are "take recent^W changes from the other BSDs if they are useful". FWIW I don't believe this sort of patch significantly affects debugging because that should be done with -O0 -g anyways. That said, thanks for the info. If I have other diffs which are more suitable to OpenBSD I'll be sure to send them. Most the remainder are similar cleanup or non-POSIX feature-adds. -- Eitan Adler
