On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:12:21AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: > 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.
Odd how often people running release, and who don't want to compile shit, report problems we'd like them to be able to provide more info on. :-) .... Ken > > 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
