Re: why not inline all functions?

ian@five-d.com (Ian Kemmish)
18 Jun 1998 11:06:55 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: why not inline all functions? f81@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Joerg Schoen) (1998-06-11)
Re: why not inline all functions? bje@cygnus.com (Ben Elliston) (1998-06-11)
Re: why not inline all functions? ayers@incert.com (Andy Ayers) (1998-06-11)
Re: why not inline all functions? mcdirmid@beaver.cs.washington.edu (1998-06-11)
Re: why not inline all functions? portland@uswest.net (Thomas Niemann) (1998-06-11)
Re: why not inline all functions? wclodius@aol.com (1998-06-11)
Re: why not inline all functions? ian@five-d.com (1998-06-18)
Re: why not inline all functions? hawa@celsiustech.se (Hans Walheim) (1998-06-18)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: ian@five-d.com (Ian Kemmish)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 18 Jun 1998 11:06:55 -0400
Organization: At home with Ian
References: 98-06-032 98-06-063
Keywords: optimize, performance

mcdirmid@beaver.cs.washington.edu says...


>Over "inlining" leads to greater code bloat. This could adversely affect
>your instruction cache (or maybe not...). Whenever you optimize here, you
>might deoptimize somewhere else (isn't computer science fun!).


It can also affect TLB misses. In the latest version of my PostScript
interpreter I've started _re_rolling loops which previously had been
unrolled by hand, and introducing more small functions for common code
sequencues. The result is 300Kb smaller and typically 10% faster,
despite presumably executing tons more branch instructions:-).


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK
ian@five-d.com Tel: +44 1767 601 361
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.