On 31/03/14 13:18, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
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/.
True. My remarks are on all four patches and I just replied to the first
patch. The other patches are in interrupt handling code, ie. interrupt
or bottom-halve context.
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.
Agree, but you seem to assume that in this case there is no good reason.
Regards,
Arend
--
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
