On 03/31/2014 09:38 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 30/03/14 23:31, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> Automated script discovered that without forced inlining, >> gcc-4.7 generates smaller code for this function. >> >> There is no need to declare static functions inline anyway: >> nowadays gcc detects single-callsite static functions >> which benefit from inlining. > > These patches look awfully familiar. I tend to object, but I don't know the details of this automated script. The script removes "static" keyword, recompiles the .c file, compares the sizes, and if code size went down, creates a patch > How about execution time or is this only compile tested? The change adds one pair of call/return instructions - probably around 5-10 CPU cycles. The function in question is a part of firmware download logic, which is nowhere near being hot path/. > The other thing is that you seem to rely on a specific gcc version. > What about pre-4.7? How about different architectures. > Was this determined on x86, arm, sparc, mips. > All these questions make me say 'nay'. Not making functions inline unless there is a good reason is a general good coding practice. It is not a compiler- or architecture-specific optimization. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
