This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Inlining Improvements

To: dalecki at dacotec dot net
Subject: Re: Inlining Improvements
From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:51:48 +0100
CC: jamie dot lokier at cern dot ch, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991221114000.17061B-100000@sandra.lysator.liu.se> <199912211254.NAA14067@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> <19991221170444.B10482@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <199912211736.SAA08498@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> <19991222000156.A3821@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> <199912220758.IAA00643@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> <386087B7.3AA6B6F6@dacotec.net>

> > > The point is that tree inlining seems to generate better code than RTL
> > > inlining which the C compiler currently does.
> > 
> > Examples?
> > 
> 
> No problem: looks at some recent linux-2.3.xxx kernel source:

Pardon? How is this example relevant to tree inlining? Tree inlining
is currently done only by the C++ compiler, and the kernel is not
compiled by the C++ compiler.

I have no doubt macros generate better code than inline functions, in
any version of gcc. But that was not my question.

Regards,
Martin

References:
- Inlining Improvements
  - From: Oskar Enoksson
- Re: Inlining Improvements
  - From: Martin v. Loewis
- Re: Inlining Improvements
  - From: Jamie Lokier
- Re: Inlining Improvements
  - From: Martin v. Loewis
- Re: Inlining Improvements
  - From: Jamie Lokier
- Re: Inlining Improvements
  - From: Martin v. Loewis
- Re: Inlining Improvements
  - From: Marcin Dalecki

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