On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Matt Wilmas <php_li...@realplain.com> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dmitry Stogov" > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 > > Hi Matt, >> >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Matt Wilmas <php_li...@realplain.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Dmitry, Anatol, Pierre (etc.), and all, >>> >>> I'm back now, I think, after a much longer (unintentional) break than I >>> expected. Be coming very soon with what I was doing in the summer (param >>> parsing stuff) -- *now* it works with MSVC too, barring any fragility, >>> as I >>> accidentally discovered last month... >>> >>> I've been "discovering" a lot with the wacky Visual Studio compiler! :-) >>> This message is about the 2 I found today. >>> >>> The first simple thing was probably just overlooked, but noticed it while >>> looking up __declspec. zend_never_inline has always been empty (I guess) >>> for MSVC, but there's actually a __declspec(noinline) that can be used >>> (and >>> works as expected). A simple and obvious change to bring it in line with >>> the other compilers? >>> >>> >> Please, provide a patch for zend_portability.h >> > > Really? :-) And that's easier than just adding > > __declspec(noinline) > > to line 287? > > I can add it myself soon, if it's acceptable. And yes, I verified that it > does have an effect, and prevents current inlining, as you intended. (12 > KB smaller binary.) > I don't test Windows builds. If this OK for Anatol - just commit this. Thanks. Dmitry. > > The second "issue" is with the zend_always_inline functions, I noticed >>> this summer. Did anyone else know that MSVC leaves a *copy* of those >>> functions in the output files (DLLs)? What's the point of that? When >>> they've been inlined, and not referenced otherwise, there should be no >>> reason to emit code for a standalone function! >>> >>> I remembered after seeing that behavior that a bit of my own >>> __forceinline'd code did NOT have extra function code, but forgot to >>> investigate until today. What's different about my function definition? >>> No "static" specifier! So that's the key. :-) >>> >>> But... non-static would create duplicate symbols, I thought. But no, it >>> works! With just __forceinline, there's no errors. :^) >>> >>> Can something be done about this? It would cut the binary size down a >>> bit. A zend_static macro to be used with zend_always_inline...? >>> >>> >> zend_always inline should be always used with static keyword. >> > > Right, that would be the standard thinking, but it makes MSVC not remove > the unreferenced standalone function like GCC/Clang... Adds almost 100 KB > to php7.dll. > > But nevermind... Thanks to Anatol, it seems another compiler flag WILL > actually strip those functions, and then some! :-) > > Thanks. Dmitry. >> > > - Matt >
