Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #5618

Re: efficient function call

From Edek <edek.pieITAKNIECZYTAM@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: efficient function call
Date 2011-05-26 15:53 +0200
Organization ATMAN - ATM S.A.
Message-ID <irllnn$hdq$1@node2.news.atman.pl> (permalink)
References <b77d43d1-0865-4c3d-9179-6cda0ff992c1@m40g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> <5b9040f8-e35b-4cb0-95c8-1b89838f1da9@s14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> <irim81$v8d$1@dont-email.me> <579f855a-ff3b-4e65-a977-9773fb58a07c@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <irleec$po3$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

> But everyone here have been telling you: the function call overhead
> for a small function is probably going to be null when optimisation is
> turned on because the compiler will inline the function regardles of
> the usage of the "inline" keyword.

Main topic aside: the above is not always true. Even in the same cpp 
file, sometimes non-inline functions cannot be inlined, and inline 
function can (and usually will). Compiler is free to inline a non-inline 
function only if it can determine it can be sure it knows its body, and 
this is not true sometimes even in the same cpp file - e.g. on an ELF 
system when compiling position independent code (Linux, shared library) 
almost every non-inline function can be replaced during program loading 
by an arbitrary implementation and gcc must take this into account, so 
no inlining can be done unless the function is really inline.

Edek

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

efficient function call hamze <hamze60@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 05:52 -0700
  Re: efficient function call Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-05-24 09:52 -0400
    Re: efficient function call yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-24 18:28 +0000
    Re: efficient function call hamze <hamze60@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 11:49 -0700
      Re: efficient function call Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-05-24 15:07 -0400
        Re: efficient function call hamze <hamze60@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 00:37 -0700
          Re: efficient function call yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-25 10:38 +0000
            Re: efficient function call hamze <hamze60@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 11:08 -0700
              Re: efficient function call Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2011-05-25 21:38 +0200
              Re: efficient function call yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-26 11:44 +0000
                Re: efficient function call Edek <edek.pieITAKNIECZYTAM@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 15:53 +0200
                Re: efficient function call yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-05-27 08:31 +0000
                Re: efficient function call Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-27 13:45 +0000
                Re: efficient function call Edek <edek.pieITAKNIECZYTAM@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 16:17 +0200
                Re: efficient function call Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-27 22:38 +0000
                Re: efficient function call Edek <edek.pieITAKNIECZYTAM@gmail.com> - 2011-05-27 16:39 +0200
      Re: efficient function call Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 14:30 -0700
        Re: efficient function call hamze <hamze60@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 00:39 -0700
      Re: efficient function call hamze <hamze60@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 00:20 -0700

csiph-web