Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 4248162
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 21, 20262026-05-21T04:12:50+00:00 2026-05-21T04:12:50+00:00

I’ve lately encountered a lot of functions where gcc generates really bad code on

  • 0

I’ve lately encountered a lot of functions where gcc generates really bad code on x86. They all fit a pattern of:

if (some_condition) {
    /* do something really simple and return */
} else {
    /* something complex that needs lots of registers */
}

Think of simple case as something so small that half or more of the work is spent pushing and popping registers that won’t be modified at all. If I were writing the asm by hand, I would save and restore the saved-across-calls registers inside the complex case, and avoid touching the stack pointer at all in the simple case.

Is there any way to get gcc to be a little bit smarter and do this itself? Preferably with command line options rather than ugly hacks in the source…

Edit: To make it concrete, here’s something very close to some of the functions I’m dealing with:

if (buf->pos < buf->end) {
    return *buf->pos++;
} else {
    /* fill buffer */
}

and another one:

if (!initialized) {
    /* complex initialization procedure */
}
return &initialized_object;

and another:

if (mutex->type == SIMPLE) {
    return atomic_swap(&mutex->lock, 1);
} else {
    /* deal with ownership, etc. */
}

Edit 2: I should have mentioned to begin with: these functions cannot be inlined. They have external linkage and they’re library code. Allowing them to be inlined in the application would result in all kinds of problems.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-21T04:12:51+00:00Added an answer on May 21, 2026 at 4:12 am

    Perhaps upgrade your version of gcc? 4.6 has just been released. As far as I understand, it has the possibility of “partial inline”. That is, an easily integratable outer part of a function is inlined and the expensive part is transformed into a call. But I have to admit that I didn’t try it myself, yet.

    Edit: The statement I was referring to from the ChangeLog:

    Partial inlining is now supported and
    enabled by default at -O2 and greater.
    The feature can be controlled via
    -fpartial-inlining.

    Partial inlining splits functions with
    short hot path to return. This allows
    more aggressive inlining of the hot
    path leading to better performance and
    often to code size reductions (because
    cold parts of functions are not
    duplicated).

    …

    Inlining when optimizing for size
    (either in cold regions of a program
    or when compiling with -Os) was
    improved to better handle C++ programs
    with larger abstraction penalty,
    leading to smaller and faster code.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a string like this: La Torre Eiffel paragonata all&#8217;Everest What PHP function
link Im having trouble converting the html entites into html characters, (&# 8217;) i
I have this code to decode numeric html entities to the UTF8 equivalent character.
I'm parsing an RSS feed that has an &#8217; in it. SimpleXML turns this
I have this code: - (void)parser:(NSXMLParser *)parser foundCDATA:(NSData *)CDATABlock { NSString *someString = [[NSString
I have a text area in my form which accepts all possible characters from
I know there's a lot of other questions out there that deal with this
I am using Paperclip to handle profile photo uploads in my app. They upload
I ran into a problem. Wrote the following code snippet: teksti = teksti.Trim() teksti
I have a .ini file as follows: [playlist] numberofentries=2 File1=http://87.230.82.17:80 Title1=(#1 - 365/1400) Example

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.