Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751042AbWABU3b (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 15:29:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751037AbWABU3b (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 15:29:31 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:1230 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750724AbWABU3a (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 15:29:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 15:28:03 -0500 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrew Morton , Krzysztof Halasa , mingo@elte.hu, bunk@stusta.de, arjan@infradead.org, tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de, davej@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com Subject: Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers Message-ID: <20060102202803.GJ22293@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20051231144534.GA5826@elte.hu> <20051231150831.GL3811@stusta.de> <20060102103721.GA8701@elte.hu> <1136198902.2936.20.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060102134345.GD17398@stusta.de> <20060102140511.GA2968@elte.hu> <20060102110341.03636720.akpm@osdl.org> <20060102191720.GI22293@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1271 Lines: 26 On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:41:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Where does this certainity come from? gcc-3.x (as well as 2.x) each had > > its own heuristics which functions should be inlined and which should not. > > inline keyword has always been a hint. > > NO IT HAS NOT. > > This is total revisionist history by gcc people. It did not use to be a > hint. If you asked for inlining, you got it unless there was some > technical reason why gcc couldn't inline it (ie recursive inlining, and > trampolines and some other issues). End of story. One of the "technical reasons" was if the function was bigger than some threshold. And in that case I think it is ok to speak about inline keyword as a hint. The default inline limit (in rtx count after constant folding, but not other optimizations) was bigger than in the GCC 3.x era, sure, but there was a limit and GCC wasn't inlining functions bigger than that limit, even if they could be simplified due to constant arguments to something much smaller. Jakub - 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/