On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Qing Zhao wrote: > Alexander, > > thanks for the questions. > > Yes, we had some discussion on the questions you raised during the review of > the initial patch back to 9/11/2018. > please take a look at those discussions at: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00549.html > <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00549.html> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00787.html > <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-09/msg00787.html> > > and let me know if those discussion still does not answer your questions.
Thank you. Yes, it is still unclear to me why restricting inlining to static functions noticeably helps in your case. Is it because you build the kernel with LTO? Otherwise effects from inlining are limited to one compilation unit, except for functions defined in headers. But for those, the kernel uses 'static inline' anyway, so the patch wouldn't change anything. If the original issue is that inlining duplicates code, wouldn't it be better solved by a switch that instructs inlining heuristics to inline as if for -Os, without enabling -Os for other passes? Alexander
