Re: pondering pi futexes
- Reply: Konstantin Belousov : "Re: pondering pi futexes"
- In reply to: Konstantin Belousov : "Re: pondering pi futexes"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:08:02 UTC
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 3:35 AM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 11:01:17AM +0300, Dmitry Chagin wrote: > > Hi, thanks for the reply, I mostly finished, > > the new futex impl is fully based on the umtx code, one question before > review. > > some umtx API, which is needed for futexes, inlined, like > > umtxq_busy/unbusy, umtxq_lock/unlock, umtx_pi_alloc/pi_free, etc.. > > For now I moved such API to the umtx header, but as far as I understand > > compilers are smart enough now to optimize code without suggestions. > > Maybe it's time to drop inline hint? > > > May be. It is impossible to provide a justified answer without looking > at the generated code, with/without inline. But usually yes, inline does > not make a difference for not too large static functions. > Even in header files? There I thought it was one of the few places it mattered due to semantic differences... has that changed? Warner