On Feb 18, 2008 6:01 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This means it generates faster code with a current gcc for your platform.
> >
> > But a future gcc might e.g. replace the whole loop with a division
> > (gcc SVN head (that will soon become gcc 4.3) already does
> >
On Feb 18, 2008 6:01 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This means it generates faster code with a current gcc for your platform.
But a future gcc might e.g. replace the whole loop with a division
(gcc SVN head (that will soon become gcc 4.3) already does
transformations
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:45:23AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2008 9:58 AM, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Last but not least, gcc 4 tends to emit stupid checks, to the point that I
> > have replaced unlikely(x) with (x) in my code when gcc >= 4 is detected.
> > What
>
On Feb 16, 2008 9:58 AM, Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last but not least, gcc 4 tends to emit stupid checks, to the point that I
> have replaced unlikely(x) with (x) in my code when gcc >= 4 is detected. What
> I observe is that the following code :
>
> if (unlikely(p == NULL))
On Feb 16, 2008 9:58 AM, Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last but not least, gcc 4 tends to emit stupid checks, to the point that I
have replaced unlikely(x) with (x) in my code when gcc = 4 is detected. What
I observe is that the following code :
if (unlikely(p == NULL)) ...
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 01:45:23AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Feb 16, 2008 9:58 AM, Willy Tarreau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last but not least, gcc 4 tends to emit stupid checks, to the point that I
have replaced unlikely(x) with (x) in my code when gcc = 4 is detected.
What
I observe
6 matches
Mail list logo
