Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272627AbTG1DFu (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272649AbTG1DFu (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:50 -0400 Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.214]:32930 "EHLO TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272627AbTG1DFt (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:05:49 -0400 To: Hollis Blanchard Cc: Otto Solares , "J.A. Magallon" , Alan Cox , David McCullough , uclinux-dev@uclinux.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ihar Philips Filipau Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()? References: <9CA735B0-BEAD-11D7-BEDE-000A95A0560C@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop From: Miles Bader Date: 28 Jul 2003 12:19:13 +0900 In-Reply-To: <9CA735B0-BEAD-11D7-BEDE-000A95A0560C@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 814 Lines: 13 Hollis Blanchard writes: > Inlines don't always help performance (depending on cache sizes, branch > penalties, frequency of code access...), but they do always increase > code size. Um, inlining can often _decrease_ code size because it gives the compiler substantial new opportunities for optimization (the function body is no longer opaque, so the compiler has a lot more info, and any optimizations done on the inlined body can be context-specific). -Miles -- Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/