linux-kernel - Re: if (unlikely(...)) == unnecessary?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901281156290.21401@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:59:01 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: if (unlikely(...)) == unnecessary?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Mikael Pettersson wrote:

> Davide Libenzi writes:
>  > I noticed that GCC >= 3.3 (not tried the ones before) automatically 
>  > branches out the "if" code (and follow-through the "else" code, if there). 
>  > Is that a coincidence or a rule we can rely on going forward?
> 
> Coincidence.
> 
> Why on earth would you want to rely on an purely private implementation
> detail like that?

I didn't want to. I was just curious if anyone that actually followed GCC 
developments in the last few years could shed some light on it.

- Davide

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/