On 06/09/16 08:33 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: > On Sep 6, 2016 12:03 PM, "Michel Dänzer" <mic...@daenzer.net > <mailto:mic...@daenzer.net>> wrote: >> On 06/09/16 06:04 PM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net > <mailto:mic...@daenzer.net>> wrote: >> >> On 06/09/16 07:46 AM, Marek Olšák wrote: >> >>> From: Marek Olšák <marek.ol...@amd.com <mailto:marek.ol...@amd.com>> >> >> >> >> Did you measure any significant performance boost with this change? >> > >> > I didn't measure anything. >> > >> >> Otherwise, using (un)likely can be bad because it can defeat the CPU's >> >> branch prediction, which tends to be pretty good these days. >> > >> > I'm not an expert on that, but it doesn't seem to be the case >> > according to other people's comments here. >> >> My main point (which Gustaw seems to agree with) is that (un)likely >> should only be used when measurements show that they have a positive > effect. > > I agree with you, but do you always measure the effect of unlikely? I > almost never do and I just use it instinctively like most people do. Due > to our manpower constraints, we can't even afford to measure performance > for much bigger changes than this.
So let's spend our manpower on more important things than (un)likely annotations. :) -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
