On Sat, 2011-12-10 at 11:50 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > On Dec 10, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > > On 12/10/11 10:13, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > >> Re: -Winline specifically since you brought it up. If the intent is to > >> make an inline function for performance reasons, and that function > >> actually can't be inlined, I'd think we'd want to know. Specifically > >> regarding xtrans, perhaps we should just make those vararg functions > >> !inline. > > > > Except that it only tells you that it can't be inlined by that particular > > compiler on that platform - not that a different gcc version couldn't do > > it, or a different compiler (clang, Solaris Studio, Intel, etc.) couldn't. > > > > Also, some of the warnings it generates in the Xserver are simply "optimizer > > decided it was unprofitable to inline at this particular call site", not > > "you designed this function in a way the optimizer can never inline it > > anywhere". > > > > As I said, if you're doing specific performance tuning, I can see turning it > > on, but in general builds it seems more like noise drowning out more useful > > warning messages. > > Ok, fair enough. Let's turn it off then for the next release. This is why I > wanted it to sit for a while before releasing util-macros, but it's always > the case that things come up right after the release ;)
Fine tuning of the content can be released as 1.16.1 easily. The public interface does not change so there is no risk of breaking anything. > > Are there any others that you think are too noisy or not as helpful as I had > hoped them to be? > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
