From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix Unlikely(x) == y From: Michael Ellerman To: Adrian Bunk In-Reply-To: <20080218141340.GB667@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> References: <47B70A61.9030306@tiscali.nl> <20080216092552.325e5726@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080216173315.GU8953@1wt.eu> <20080216094226.1e8eede1@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <47B72BFE.9060302@am.sony.com> <20080216103927.2a02352b@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1203249003.6718.24.camel@concordia> <20080218135609.GD21080@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080218141340.GB667@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-IdwcwOSGnOD6G3yqipy8" Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:46:03 +1100 Message-Id: <1203371163.6844.2.camel@concordia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, lkml , cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Geert Uytterhoeven , Willy Tarreau , Arjan van de Ven Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-IdwcwOSGnOD6G3yqipy8 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: > > >=20 > > > This means it generates faster code with a current gcc for your platf= orm. > > >=20 > > > 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=20 > > > transformations like replacing loops with divisions [1]). > >=20 > > Hence shouldn't we ask the gcc people what's the purpose of __builtin_e= xpect(), > > if it doesn't live up to its promise? >=20 > That's a different issue. >=20 > My point here is that we do not know how the latest gcc available in the=20 > year 2010 might transform this code, and how a likely/unlikely placed=20 > 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 --=20 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 --=-IdwcwOSGnOD6G3yqipy8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHufybdSjSd0sB4dIRAuniAKC9yzwN6FD6IrilD99aAJxbRgQNNgCgxz+v G9yh8IdhjWVhKqqh7KfCB5Y= =XGUG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-IdwcwOSGnOD6G3yqipy8--