From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932533AbWFHHAH (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 03:00:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932539AbWFHHAH (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 03:00:07 -0400 Received: from gw.openss7.com ([142.179.199.224]:2238 "EHLO gw.openss7.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932533AbWFHHAG (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2006 03:00:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 01:00:04 -0600 From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andrew Morton , adilger@clusterfs.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop Message-ID: <20060608010004.A12202@openss7.org> Reply-To: bidulock@openss7.org Mail-Followup-To: Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , adilger@clusterfs.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060607173642.GA6378@schatzie.adilger.int> <200606080739.33967.ak@suse.de> <20060608004153.A11953@openss7.org> <200606080851.20232.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200606080851.20232.ak@suse.de>; from ak@suse.de on Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 08:51:20AM +0200 Organization: http://www.openss7.org/ Dsn-Notification-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi, On Thu, 08 Jun 2006, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Originally because it made assembly too unreadable. Later it was discovered > it produces smaller code too. > Thank you for the explanation. But, this brings to mind two other questions: Does the option not also make assembly less readable on other architectures? If one is interested in smaller code, why not use -Os? Also, does -fno-reorder-blocks actually defeat __builtin_expect()? (GCC documentation doesn't really say that.)