From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 23 17:15:33 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6D49737B401; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9312043FCB; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from wes@softweyr.com)
Received: from salty.rapid.stbernard.com (corp-2.ipinc.com [199.245.188.2])
	by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id DFFFC9BEA8; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>
Organization: Softweyr.com
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>,
	Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:15:31 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2
References: <10036.1058870835@critter.freebsd.dk>
	<20030722235600.X8165@gamplex.bde.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030722235600.X8165@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200307231715.31186.wes@softweyr.com>
cc: Paul Richards <paul@freebsd-services.com>
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/lnc if_lnc.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:15:34 -0000

On Tuesday 22 July 2003 07:17, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > Paul Richards writes:
> > >
> > >Both of those functions were called from just one place, inside
> > > the interrupt handler. Is there any reason to not inline them?
> >
> > Yes, we need to get -Werror on the kernel again, and GCC whines
> > about ridiculously large functions.
>
> I think you mean "gcc emits the requested diagnostic about functions
> that it doesn't inline, whether they are large or small".
>
> Just turn off -Winline to not request this diagnostic.
>
> > Inline should not be used unless it has a measurable impact on
> > performance.
>
> Several places, including if_lnc.c, used __inline to get cleaner code
> at no cost in performance.  Removing __inline adds a tiny cost.

Not if the compiler didn't actually *do* the inline, right?

-- 
         "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"

Wes Peters                                              wes@softweyr.com