[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#12541: Prefer plain 'static' to 'static inline'.
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
bug#12541: Prefer plain 'static' to 'static inline'. |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:00:54 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 |
On 10/01/2012 10:14 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Perhaps that's because STRING_CHAR could call a function?
Yes, I suspect that's it. When there's enough register pressure it
can sometimes make sense to put a call inside a function rather than
inline it.
> Nevertheless, I'm okay with removing the 'inline' qualifier from
> bidi.c. If the performance hit is significant, I'm sure we will hear
> from users shortly. Otherwise, I'll try to measure the performance
> with and without 'inline' when I have time, and we can take it from
> there.
Thanks, I did that as trunk bzr 110345 and am marking this as done.
For what it's worth, the amount of inlining often depends greatly on
exactly which compiler flags are used -- with GCC, for example, it can
matter quite a bit whether one uses -O1, -O2, or -O3.