On Jun 16, 09 13:43:55 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > To my experience they are not as efficient. Even with today's compilers > > :-( > I'd love to see an existence proof for this.
Because we all disliked the use of macros in the radeon driver in the acceleration routines, we had all acceleration macros for radeonhd first coded up as static inline functions, but switched over to macros because of something like a 30% performance impact (AFAIR, it definitely was not negligible). Later I discussed this with Richard Guenther (one of the major gcc developers, who happens to work here at SuSE), and he basically agreed that gcc is by far not optimal with respect to optimizing static inline functions yet. That's as far as a proof as I can come by. Luc probably remembers the git commits (if there were any, and we didn't only commit the optimized version), because he coded that stuff. gcc version was 4.2 AFAIR. Matthias -- Matthias Hopf <[email protected]> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ [email protected] Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
