Related articles |
---|
Is inlining evil? mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) (1991-05-03) |
Re: Is inlining evil? hoelzle@neon.Stanford.EDU (1991-05-04) |
Re: Is inlining evil? quale@cs.wisc.edu (1991-05-04) |
Re: Is inlining evil? clark@ingr.com (Clark Williams) (1991-05-05) |
Re: Is inlining evil? mjs@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) (1991-05-08) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | hoelzle@neon.Stanford.EDU (Urs Hoelzle) |
Keywords: | optimize, design |
Organization: | Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA |
References: | <7524@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <1991May1.035622.25021@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <19 <9105031304.AA00625@slave.vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at> |
Date: | Sat, 4 May 1991 00:56:12 GMT |
mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael K. Gschwind) writes:
>Yes, inlining can result in performance degradation, esp. cache effects
>can be awful, but judicious use of inlining is a Good Thing. If you
>inline (modestly) huge functions (< 10-20 % of I - cache size (?)), this
>will destroy any hint of locality. Take this example of C code:
I keep seeing these ominous warnings about the Bad Things that happen
when code size increases. Does anybody actually have data on this? I
seem to remember one study where doubling the code size didn't change
the code cache miss ratio very much.
I suspect that with reasonably large I caches (say > 32K) code cache
misses are not an issue when deciding wether to use inlining or not.
Remember that doubling the I cache size doesn't buy you very much
above a certain (read: reasonable) cache size.
-Urs
Disclaimer: sure, there will always be some cases where code size / I
cache behavior *is* important - but I think they are the exception
rather than the rule.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urs Hoelzle hoelzle@cs.stanford.EDU
Center for Integrated Systems, CIS 42, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.