From:	N8TM AT aol DOT com
Message-ID:	<cb594686.36f1ab8e@aol.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:42:38 EST
To:	ssnyder AT indy DOT net, egcs AT cygnus DOT com, pgcc AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Questions on inlining of code
X-Mailer:	AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 238
Reply-To:	pgcc AT delorie DOT com

In a message dated 3/18/99 7:31:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, ssnyder AT indy DOT net
writes:

> 2. Does aggressive inlining of code make any sense on a Pentium+ CPU?
>  It obviously helps on a 386/486 by avoiding the call/return instructions. 
>  I wonder, though, if the inlining of code doesn't just thrash the L2 cache 
>  on more recent processors.  Given the prevalence these days of 512kb L2

I suspect your context is different from mine, but I would answer that in-
lining is likely to be useful only in inner loops.  I would point out also
that there is little benefit in going beyond -Os with the "stable release"
compilers, and seldom more than 10% with the snapshots.  Depending on your
source code, you may be able to exert some control over excessive in-lining by
splitting it into separately compiled files, using includes as necessary.

- Raw text -