Dan Kegel wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Detlef Riekenberg wine.dev@web.de wrote:
Code, which is called very often, should produce as less overhead as possible. I suggest to use "static inline".
I have 'static' already. The compiler's probably better at deciding when to use inline than we are, may as well leave inline off unless we're sure it's faster. (inline can cause bloat...) I haven't done the benchmarking to test whether this change slows, say, an ls -lR down, but I suspect any slowdown will be because of the extra syscall rather than the lack of inline.
It doesn't really matter if you add inline or not. The C standard specifies inline as a hint and "newer" gcc versions implement it that way. Of course the hint adds to the heuristic that gcc uses to determine when to inline or not. For a discussion on "inline" see the "Who is the best inliner of all?" article on LWN http://lwn.net/Articles/314848/ .
bye michael