From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eal/common: better likely() and unlikely()
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:35:01 +0100
Message-ID: <5180253.XvhpJrJZVt@xps>
References: <1511129764-23123-1-git-send-email-Aleksey.Baulin@gmail.com>
 <D3302FD6-A529-497E-A470-5EBC1729EDF5@intel.com>
 <CAJ+OjZkv24B=aVthrj8EepX-jpXtx+Pc1KBuyuTpJ3stMUd3jg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Aleksey Baulin <Aleksey.Baulin@gmail.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79481B014
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:35:32 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+OjZkv24B=aVthrj8EepX-jpXtx+Pc1KBuyuTpJ3stMUd3jg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

21/11/2017 08:05, Aleksey Baulin:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Aleksey Baulin <aleksey.baulin@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > -#define unlikely(x)  __builtin_expect((x),0)
> > > +#define unlikely(x)  __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0)
> >
> > I have not looked at the generated code, but does this add some extra
> > instruction now to do the !!(x) ?
> 
> Sorry for late response. Jim had given the correct answer already.
> You won't get an extra instruction with compiler optimization turned on.

So this patch is adding an instruction in not optimized binary.
I don't understand the benefit.
Is it just to avoid to make pointer comparison explicit?
likely(pointer != NULL) looks better than likely(pointer).