Re: [patch 00/2] improve .text size on gcc 4.0 and newer compilers

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 19:44 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> 
> > what is the 'deeper problem'? I believe it is a combination of two 
> > (well-known) things:
> >
> >   1) people add 'inline' too easily
> >   2) we default to 'always inline'
> 
> For example, I add "inline" for static functions which are only called
> from one place.

you know what? gcc inlines those automatic even without you typing
"inline". (esp if you have unit-at-a-time enabled)

> 
> If I'm able to say "this is static function which is called from one
> place" I'd do so instead of saying "inline". But omitting the "inline"
> with hope that some new gcc probably will inline it anyway (on some
> platform?) doesn't seem like a best idea.

well.. gcc is not stupid, especially if you give it visibility by
enabling unit-at-a-time. It *WILL* inline static-used-once functions
unless there is a technical reason not to (say variable sized arrays)
> 
> But what _is_ the best idea?

you save about 1 cycle by inlining unless there is a trick for the
optimizer. Especially in the case you mention where gcc will dtrt...
it's not worth typing "inline", what if you change the code later to use
the function twice... most people at least forget to remove the
redundant inline, turning it into a bloater...