On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:51 PM, atarob wrote:
> Pankaj Mehta Wrote:
> ---
>> These should be covered during the link time optimisations.
>>
>> Look here for gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization
>
> I was very much unaware of this. T
Pankaj Mehta Wrote:
---
> These should be covered during the link time optimisations.
>
> Look here for gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization
I was very much unaware of this. The linker actually compiles. Wow.
Thanks.
Posted at
wrong? How is that not a performance hit?
In no particular order:
- As already pointed out, smart enough compilers can inline
whatever they want.
- Adding all functions to .h files results in unmanagable code, so
there should be a bar somewhere.
- In many cases inlining may actually b
These should be covered during the link time optimisations.
Look here for gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization
And here for Visual Studio :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xbf3tbeh.aspx
Cheers
Pankaj
On 14 February 2014 23:24, atarob wrote:
> > On Friday, February 14, 20
> On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:59:26 PM atarob wrote:
> > Looking through the codebase, I see a lot of very short helper like
> > functions that are defined in .c files with prototypes in .h files.
> This
> > means that the compiler cannot inline them outside of that .c file.
> > Am I
> > wrong?
I suppose they will be inlined at -O2 level:
http://linux.die.net/man/1/gcc
-finline-small-functions
Integrate functions into their callers when their body is smaller than expected
function call code (so overall size of program gets smaller). The compiler
heuristically decides which functions ar
Looking through the codebase, I see a lot of very short helper like
functions that are defined in .c files with prototypes in .h files. This
means that the compiler cannot inline them outside of that .c file. Am I
wrong? How is that not a performance hit?
Ata.
Posted at Nginx Forum:
http://foru
