On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:04:36AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> 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?
Almost, you should compare sizes of mlx4_ib.ko and not drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/main.o.
Thanks
>
> text: -32
> data: 0
> bss: 0
>
> Regards,
> Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
