Re: [PATCH] take 2 of the tr-based current

Manfred Spraul
2001-11-11T14:04:31Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1057 bytes --]

Anton Blanchard wrote:

>I changed the code a bit so that get_cpu() is now inline - this
>represents our situation better. I think it is valid for gcc to cache
>get_cpu across a function call in the below example because it knows
>that get_cpu does not refer to any global variables.
>
You are right: it seems that gcc internally decides if an inline
function is const or pure.

static inline int get_TR(void)
{
int reg;
__asm__ (
"rep; nop;\n\t"
"xor %0,%0\n\t"
: "=r" (reg));
return ret;
}

is always optimized as if get_TR is a function with __attribute__((const)).

Ben, is it intentional that get_TR is _not_ marked as inline? Your
version produces explicit function calls with -O2, and incorrect code
with -O99 (gcc decides to inline get_TR even without an inline
directive, and then optimizes away the calls after schedule.)

It seems that Anton's version generates the best code.
I've tested the attached version with egcs-1.1.2, gcc-2.96-98 and
gcc3-3.0.1-3, with -O0, -O2 and -O99.

--
Manfred

[-- Attachment #2: test.c --]
[-- Type: application/msword, Size: 661 bytes --]