From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Inlining policy Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:26:16 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: References: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> <20200326193128.GC14092@ACM> <86d08y4zsx.fsf@gmail.com> <83sghs7qdz.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7y63sjj.fsf@gnu.org> <834ku43c61.fsf@gnu.org> <83k12zz6ds.fsf@gnu.org> <054393f3-3873-ab6e-b325-0eca354d8838@gmx.at> <29a6c120-f260-0ea3-f5e0-1d3dd6323d09@gmx.at> <5752c978-3a13-4e09-18b3-14201eaf1083@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="101372"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 Cc: martin rudalics , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier , Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 06 20:38:55 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jLWe6-000QI5-TW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 20:38:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36982 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLWe5-0008Ol-Vm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 14:38:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44989) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLWRx-0008Ju-5h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 14:26:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLWRv-0005rh-JM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 14:26:20 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:33622) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLWRv-0005qq-Di for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 14:26:19 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E299160091; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id vaUErdpFl6R2; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3EC1600C3; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 989ac_hKcE29; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-23-242-74-103.socal.res.rr.com [23.242.74.103]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EEF1160091; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:246552 Archived-At: On 4/6/20 11:15 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > I haven't checked whether it has the same performance impact, and > neither do I know how it compares w.r.t. "portability/reliability", but > judging just from the patch, I really like it. > > Paul? Although I like the idea, it significantly hurts performance with -O0 (GCC 9.3.1, x86-64) because it causes GCC to emit excess instructions to save and restore inline function arguments to the stack. I'm testing a patch to use the idea for -Og but not -O0. Here it seems to help performance. Unfortunately this means we still need to keep those macros, for -O0.