For what is worth I did the test again but this time I separated the main and f1 in two separate C files. I compiled them separately and then linked them together. This time the function was never inlined (even if there is just one or two calls, i.e. NC=1 or 2). Weird huh? PS: main and f1 were defined in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-11/msg00201.html jorge.perez@xxxxxxxx wrote: > Thans for your comments guys, I'll follow your suggestions and try other examples and test additional options as well. > > I forgot to precise however that I used the option -os (optimizing for size) > > Regards > > > Jorge > > In addition to the comments from Eric: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:53:28PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > >>> I appreciate any feedback or suggestions you have about this, maybe I'm >>> doing it all wrong from the begining, but the fact that inline increases >>> the size of the code was weird to me. >>> >> The inlining heuristics are complex and tuned for real programs, so it's >> probably easy to fool them with toy examples. Modifying them generally >> requires a lot of retuning efforts so isn't a small undertaking. >> > If you are not happy with the way gcc inlines "by default", you can > influence the inlining heuristics by many parameters / compile options, > like: large-function-insns, large-function-growth, > inline-unit-growth,... > There is a long list in the manpage ;-) > > Axel > >
