Re: commit: inlining

From: Blue Lizard (
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 22:44:01 EDT

  • Next message: Patrick Lam: "commit: revert inlining"

    On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 18:09, Patrick Lam wrote:
    >A smart C++ compiler would've automatically inlined them, but oh well.

    Um...I should really know when to stick a fish in my mouth, stop
    squirming, and let it go...but yes, IT WOULD HAVE. WOULD HAVE if didnt suck for not letting me use any normal flags with
    profiling ones. Gcc, poor thing, was told not to compile with any
    inlining, so it didnt. I suck too, for not investigating
    earlier, esp. after i was noticing some rather suspicious outputs in the
    profile comparison.

    Anyway, dom told me how to entirely override that evil, EVIL file. I
    got a lot of retesting to do of old (thought broken) patches. Please
    remove that inline. Smart c++ compilers will inline unless they are
    told not to, so we dont need to tell them to. This is buggin' me.
    I will give you some results more accurate to everyday use soon.

    Auch, consider the small regression we did get when not consistantly
    inlining down the call tree til hit the spot. The parent needed an
    inline more.
    My very first thought was, why in satan's domain are we not queuing or
    at least buffering those pref calls if we truely must call thousands of
    times/sec? Buffer would help by letting the cpu cache hold on longer.
    Queuing and pushing the queued calls through as one though, mm mm good!

    What say ye oh developers of the beast?! The concept feels right, even
    if I don't have any (productive) experience mucking around in the ant's

    la lala la laaaa

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 10 2002 - 03:45:06 EDT