[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203371163.6844.2.camel@concordia>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:46:03 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>,
Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cbe-oss-dev@...abs.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 16:13 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:01:35PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > This means it generates faster code with a current gcc for your platform.
> > >
> > > But a future gcc might e.g. replace the whole loop with a division
> > > (gcc SVN head (that will soon become gcc 4.3) already does
> > > transformations like replacing loops with divisions [1]).
> >
> > Hence shouldn't we ask the gcc people what's the purpose of __builtin_expect(),
> > if it doesn't live up to its promise?
>
> That's a different issue.
>
> My point here is that we do not know how the latest gcc available in the
> year 2010 might transform this code, and how a likely/unlikely placed
> there might influence gcc's optimizations then.
You're right, we don't know. But if giving the compiler _more_
information causes it to produce vastly inferior code then we should be
filing gcc bugs. After all the unlikely/likely is just a hint, if gcc
knows better it can always ignore it.
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists