xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:05:52 -0600
Cc: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20061122042445.GR37654165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <45338DDE.8020903@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4533FAEA.2080500@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20061016232250.GM11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1161042943.5723.117.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061017005038.GN11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <AED98B89E193744D39BAC541@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061017215706.GI8394166@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1161125131.5723.158.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061122004216.GT11034@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1164157783.19915.46.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061122042445.GR37654165@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025)
David Chinner wrote:

Performance appears to be slight faster with the noinline
patch, but the variation is within the error margins of
my measurements so I'd say it's neutral.

Comments?

with fewer inlines & more function calls, what about stack frames adding up? can we measure that?

-Eric


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>