From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 7 21:19:46 2005 Return-Path: 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 5BFDB16A4CE; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:19:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0B1343D1F; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:19:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j27LJjeY037138; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:19:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j27LJglC037137; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:19:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:19:42 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20050307211942.GA37106@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <200503021343.j22DhpQ3075008@repoman.freebsd.org> <200503020915.28512.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <4226446B.7020406@freebsd.org> <61ac46c154aa515a692308440dd1141d@FreeBSD.org> <422710DD.1070203@freebsd.org> <422719E0.10703@samsco.org> <20050307195156.GA18850@dragon.nuxi.com> <422CBDEE.7020307@samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <422CBDEE.7020307@samsco.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: John Baldwin cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: David Xu cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sig.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:19:46 -0000 On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:47:42PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 07:06:24AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > > > >>a bit. Also, there is talk about increasing the default kstack size due > >>to all of the extra inlining that the compiler does with the -O2 option > > > > > >I'd love more details on the extra inlining people are seeing with -O2. > >(i.e. specifics) -O2 is not supose to do extra function inlining. That > >is suppose to be a -O3 thing. > > > >From the GCC manual: > > > >-O3 Optimize yet more. > > -O3 turns on all optimizations specified by -O2 and also turns on the > > -finline-functions, -fweb and -frename-registers options. > > > >-O2 Optimize even more. > > GCC performs nearly all supported optimizations that do not involve a > > space-speed tradeoff. The compiler does not perform loop unrolling or > > function inlining when you specify -O2. As compared to -O, this > > option increases both compilation time and the performance of the > > generated code. > > ..snip.. > > > >The -O2 options that affect size are: > > -falign-functions -falign-jumps -falign-loops -falign-labels > > -freorder-blocks -fprefetch-loop-arrays > > Talk to Bill Paul about the massive amount of inlining that is happening > in the ieee80211 ioctl code, and the no_inline directives he had to use > to kludge around it. gcc(1) does inlining of functions labeled with inline at -O1. Functions not labeled with inline will be inlined at -O2. Both cases are subject to preconditions (i.e. complexity of the function being inlined). In other words: the gcc(1) manual is inaccurate. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net