cvs commit: src/sys/kern init_main.c kern_malloc.c md5c.c subr_autoconf.c subr_mbuf.c subr_prf.c tty_subr.c vfs_cluster.c vfs_subr.c

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:49:06AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> >On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:56:34AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> And the only two criteria I think are trivial to use for proving an
> >> >> actual benefit is:
> >> >> 	1. less code is generated.
> >> >> 	2. it runs faster in tests.
> >> >
> >> >criterium 1 is the worst possible. Only criterium 2 makes sense.
> >> 
> >> No, if inlining a functions results in less code overall it also,
> >> ipso facto results in faster execution.
> >
> >Proof it. I can give a counter example to show that I seriously
> >doubt this statement:
> >
> >Inlining a function that has only 1 caller, and the call is on
> >a cold path (ie a nested if or else that's almost never executed)
> 
> Why on earth would you even think about inlining in that case ?

That's not the point. You make unqualified general statements
that smaller code yields faster execution (ipso facto). I give
one (trivial) counter example to illustrate where your claim
does not trivially hold and ask for proof. Give me the proof or
stop spreading FUD.

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel at xcllnt.net