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

[Nate Lawson]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 5:32 PM -0700 7/22/03, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >Take the i386 interrupt vector code.  Thats an example where
> >it is massively inlined.  Having a non-inlined function that
> >does all the calculations and bit shifting is much smaller
> >in code size, but slower at runtime.
>
> If I understand this discussion correctly, then the previous
> version of gcc (in freebsd-current) was NOT inlining these
> sections event though we thought it was.  Might we expect some
> performance improvements now that we know to force gcc to
> inline the functions?

Excellent troll.  :)

[FYI, the long-winded discussion underway is whether the many cases of
inlining actually do have any performance gain.  Not all requests for
inline were rejected, only those for "large" functions where gcc's idea
of large is also being debated.]

-Nate