1 |
According to the gcc manpage, -fno-inline-functions is the EXACT |
2 |
negation of the -finline-functions which is implied by -O3. |
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:16:23 -0400, Douglas Breault Jr. |
6 |
<genkreton@×××××××.net> wrote: |
7 |
> There is an fno-inline but i believe it is even more drastic, and I personally try to avoid conflicting settings, I don't trust it to always be bug free. Also to consider for compile time options are fno-default-inline. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I'd like to see some benchmarks before I set these. It doesn't seem like something that would cause errors though. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:44:36 -0400 |
14 |
> Colin Kingsley <ckingsley@×××××.com> wrote: |
15 |
> |
16 |
> > true, you could, but it would be much neater to use -O3 and disable |
17 |
> > stuff using -fno-whatever. Also, this would have the benefit of |
18 |
> > remaining usefull even if a new version of gcc had a diferent set of |
19 |
> > optimisations in -O3. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > but thats just my oppinion:) |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:16:43 -0400, Douglas Breault Jr. |
26 |
> > <genkreton@×××××××.net> wrote: |
27 |
> > > You could just enable -O2 and the following: -frename-registers and -fweb. -O3 is simply -O2 plus those 3 options. |
28 |
> > > |
29 |
> > > |
30 |
> > > |
31 |
> > > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:50:01 -0400 |
32 |
> > > Adam Petaccia <adam@×××××××××.com> wrote: |
33 |
> > > |
34 |
> > > > With gcc, is there a way to enable all -O3 options but function |
35 |
> > > > inlines? Would -fno-inline work or something like that? |
36 |
> > > > |
37 |
> > > > Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: |
38 |
> > > > |
39 |
> > > > >Hello, |
40 |
> > > > > |
41 |
> > > > >There's an interesting discussion in the OpenBSD mailing |
42 |
> > > > >list about the use of inline. |
43 |
> > > > > |
44 |
> > > > >Here's the beginning of the thread about this topic: |
45 |
> > > > > |
46 |
> > > > >,----[ http://www.sigmasoft.com/cgi-bin/wilma_hiliter/openbsd-tech/200407/msg00175.html ] |
47 |
> > > > >| inline considered harmful. |
48 |
> > > > >| |
49 |
> > > > >| * To: tech@×××××××.org |
50 |
> > > > >| * Subject: inline considered harmful. |
51 |
> > > > >| * From: Artur Grabowski <art@××××××××.org> |
52 |
> > > > >| * Date: 21 Jul 2004 03:54:46 +0200 |
53 |
> > > > >| * User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
54 |
> > > > >| |
55 |
> > > > >| Today we did a bunch of removal of inline functions in the kernel. |
56 |
> > > > >| It all started to make floppies fit, but now it's a quest. |
57 |
> > > > >| |
58 |
> > > > >| If you think that I'm crazy doing this because it might hurt your |
59 |
> > > > >| precious performance, go back to your vax and leave the performance |
60 |
> > > > >| tuning to people who have a cache. |
61 |
> > > > >| |
62 |
> > > > >| Every single inline we removed today (and there are more in the |
63 |
> > > > >| pipeline and even more waiting to be fixed) shrunk the code and MADE |
64 |
> > > > >| IT FASTER. Yes, modern cpus have something called "cache". The cache |
65 |
> > > > >| prefers the code to be smaller, rather than free from function calls. |
66 |
> > > > >| Yes, some cpus have expensive function call overhead. Don't use them. |
67 |
> > > > >| i386 has quite expensive function calls, on the other hand it doesn't |
68 |
> > > > >| have any relevant amount of registers either. So a function call |
69 |
> > > > >| instead of the same function inlined can potentially make the job |
70 |
> > > > >| easier for the register allocator in the compiler which could eat the |
71 |
> > > > >| overhead. At the same time the instruction cache can run the same code |
72 |
> > > > >| in the same place, instead of loading it from main memory 4711 times. |
73 |
> > > > >| And guess what? The stack on i386 is in the cache too, so the function |
74 |
> > > > >| call overhead isn't that bad anyway. |
75 |
> > > > >| |
76 |
> > > > >| I'm tired of seeing code where everything is made inline just because |
77 |
> > > > >| someone acted on a meme that hasn't been true for over a decade. Bloat, |
78 |
> > > > >| bloat and more bloat. Since people can't use inline correctly (it does |
79 |
> > > > >| have valid and correct uses), from now on inline in the OpenBSD kernel |
80 |
> > > > >| is considered to be a bug until proven otherwise. So. Next time I see |
81 |
> > > > >| code that adds to the bloat with inlines, I expect performance figures |
82 |
> > > > >| and kernel size comparisons that show that the inline actually |
83 |
> > > > >| contributes anything. Otherwise the code does not go in. |
84 |
> > > > >| |
85 |
> > > > >| There's still a lot of work to be done in the kernel (yes, macros can |
86 |
> > > > >| be evil too, just see nfs), so send diffs. And there's a whole |
87 |
> > > > >| unexplored field in userland too. |
88 |
> > > > >| |
89 |
> > > > >| //art |
90 |
> > > > >`---- |
91 |
> > > > > |
92 |
> > > > >Mario |
93 |
> > > > > |
94 |
> > > > > |
95 |
> > > > >-- |
96 |
> > > > >gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
97 |
> > > > > |
98 |
> > > > > |
99 |
> > > > > |
100 |
> > > > > |
101 |
> > > > |
102 |
> > > > -- |
103 |
> > > > gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
104 |
> > > > |
105 |
> > > |
106 |
> > > |
107 |
> > > |
108 |
> > |
109 |
> > -- |
110 |
> > gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |
111 |
> > |
112 |
> |
113 |
> |
114 |
> |
115 |
|
116 |
-- |
117 |
gentoo-performance@g.o mailing list |