This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: unexpected speedup by manual inlining

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Bell <andrew dot bell dot ia at gmail dot com>
Cc: Rohit Garg <rpg dot 314 at gmail dot com>, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:19:47 +0000
Subject: Re: unexpected speedup by manual inlining
References: <4d5dd8c20810280623i75a4f74bo810ea153cd70c09@mail.gmail.com> <e80abd30810281007p5cb8e3e0tf9452d6c9f43d442@mail.gmail.com>

Andrew Bell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Rohit Garg <rpg.314@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a small app. In it in a a particular place, I had a 2-3
>> functions being called from one main function. They were small
>> functions (5-6 lines) and inline keyword was used. The performance was
>> ......... HORRIBLE.
>>
>> -Winline didn't report any case of a function not being inlined.
> 
> Perhaps this is suggesting the obvious, but gcc doesn't do inlining if
> you aren't compiling with optimization.  You get no warning in this
> case from -Winline.

I was wondering about that.  It's why a reproducible test case is
essential.

Andrew.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: unexpected speedup by manual inlining
  - From: Rohit Garg

References:
- unexpected speedup by manual inlining
  - From: Rohit Garg
- Re: unexpected speedup by manual inlining
  - From: Andrew Bell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]