Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop

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 [email protected]
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 <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
  - From: Andreas Dilger <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
  - From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
  - From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
  - From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

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):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]