On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> As it stands rb_erase() isn't inlined and its rather big, >> why would you want to inline it for augmented callers? > > Just as the non-augmented rb_erase() is generated (as a non-inline > function) by merging together the rb_erase_augmented() inline function > and its dummy callbacks, I want each library that uses augmented > rbtrees to generate their own rb_erase() equivalent using their own > callbacks. The inline function in rbtree_internal.h is only to be used > as a template for generating one non-inline instance for each data > structure that uses augmented rbtrees. One more thing while we're talking about compiled code size. As you noted, the non-augmented rb_erase() is pretty big. However, that size includes the inlined rebalancing code. For the augmented erase functions, my proposal is to the rebalancing part (rb_erase_color with the rotate callback) will not be inlined, so as to limit the size of the erase functions for each augmented rbtree data structure. -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>