Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 01:00:04 -0600
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.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- From: Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- References:
- [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- From: Andreas Dilger
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- From: Andi Kleen
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- From: Brian F. G. Bidulock
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- From: Andi Kleen
- [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- Next by Date: Re: [linux-usb-devel] USB devices fail unnecessarily on unpowered hubs
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
