Current egcs, binutils and kernel (fwd)

Gabriel Paubert paubert at
Wed Apr 21 07:26:01 EST 1999

On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, David Edelsohn wrote:

> 	The purpose of my earlier message was to explain what was
> occurring in and why GCC was calling the function instead of
> inlining the code.  I thought that some people might actually want to
> understand *WHY* the function was required and why GCC was behaving as
> designed. 

Ok, calm down. But I still don't know why GCC does not expand this inline. 
It's 8 or 10 instructions, without branches so it's not much bigger than a
call for which you have to set up 3 parameter registers and which may
destroy many more registers according to the ABI conventions.
Furthermore if only one of the 2 result registers is needed, it may be
simplified quite significantly (i'm not sure it's easy to do in current
GCC to split a variable using 2 registers to remove dead code).

Maybe it's time to add the alternatives in, enabled with a
-minline-longlongshifts option. But I don't yet know enough of GCC to 
implement it.


[[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list.  Replies are ]]
[[ not  forced  back  to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]]
[[ reply is of general interest. Please check ]]
[[ and for useful information before posting.   ]]

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list