fresh data was Re: [PATCH] X86-32: Let gcc decide whether to inline memcpy was Re: New x86 warning

[Andi Kleen]

Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> > Quick test here:
>> 
>> How about you just compile the kernel with gcc-3.2 and compare the number 
>> of calls to memcpy before-and-after instead? That's the real test.
>
> I waited over 10 minutes for the full vmlinux objdumps to finish. sorry lost
> patience. If someone has a fast disassembler we can try it. I'll leave
> them running over night, maybe there are exact numbers tomorrow.
>
> But from a quick check (find -name '*.o' | xargs nm | grep memcpy) there are
> very little files which call it with the patch, so there's some
> evidence that there isn't a dramatic increase.

I let the objdumps finish over night. On my setup (defconfig + some 
additions) there are actually less calls to out of line memcpy/__memcpy
with the patch. I see only one for my defconfig, while there are 
~10 without the patch. So it makes very little difference.
The code size savings must come from more efficient code generation
for the inline case. I haven't investigated  that in detail though.

So the patch seems like a overall win.

-Andi


-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/