Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:20:48 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 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 Message-ID: <20030723012048.GB61884@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <16721.1058917746@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20030722233923.GD61493@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <16721.1058917746@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030723012048.GB61884>