From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56754B70F9 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:14:33 +1100 (EST) From: Andreas Schwab To: "David Laight" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] PowerPC: add unlikely() to BUG_ON() References: <4D41B213.4070606@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:14:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: (David Laight's message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:05:59 -0000") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Coly Li , David Daney , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yong Zhang , Wang Cong , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , "David Laight" writes: > Also, as (I think) in some of the generated code quoted, > use of __builtin_expect() with a boolean expression can > force some versions of gcc to generate the integer > value of the expression That's more likely a side effect of the definition of likely/unlikely: they expand to !!(x). Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, schwab@redhat.com GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E "And now for something completely different."