>>> I mean you aren't really making the code any smaller
>>
>> Would anybody like to check corresponding effects in more detail
>> after a specific function call was replaced by a goto statement?
>
> You are supposed to do it and not "anybody".
I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion.
The following build settings were active in my “Makefile” for this Linux test case.
…
HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -O0 -fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89
…
The affected source file can be compiled for the processor architecture “x86_64”
by a tool like “GCC 6.4.1+r251631-1.3” from the software distribution
“openSUSE Tumbleweed” with the following command example.
my_cc=/usr/bin/gcc-6 \
&& my_module=drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/main.o \
&& git checkout next-20171009 \
&& make -j4 CC="${my_cc}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig "${my_module}" \
&& size "${my_module}" \
&& git checkout next_fine-tuning_in_mlx4_1 \
&& make -j4 CC="${my_cc}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig "${my_module}" \
&& size "${my_module}"
Do you find the following details useful for further clarification?
text: -32
data: 0
bss: 0
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
