sebpop added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25624#583163, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> I'd like to understand why only the destructor? We have committed a patch to inline the constructor of std::string. Do you think we should inline some other functions? In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25624#583167, @mehdi_amini wrote: > I talked with Eric on IRC, he mentioned some benchmarks were ran. I'd like to > understand what was the baseline? We ran a proprietary benchmark compiled with clang + libc++ and compared against clang + libstdc++. With this patch, libc++ is on par with libstdc++. > Here we add *both* the inline keyword and the always_inline attribute. I'd > like to know if there is a benchmarks that shows that always_inline is > beneficial on top of the inline keyword. > If we need to add always_inline anywhere: this is likely an inliner > heuristic failure and we should at minima track it as an example to improve > it. This is a good observation: I am not sure we ran the benchmark without the always_inline attribute. We will try again wihout that attribute and report whether it matters performance wise. Thanks Mehdi for catching this! https://reviews.llvm.org/D25624 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
