On Tue, Feb 11 2020, "Todd C. Miller" wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:44:21 +, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
>
>> Looks like the existing code is OK, you still want to test the original
>> expression even if you are predicting it is false, no?
>
> Right, the code is correct as written.
Woops,
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:44:21 +, Nicholas Marriott wrote:
> Looks like the existing code is OK, you still want to test the original
> expression even if you are predicting it is false, no?
Right, the code is correct as written.
- todd
Looks like the existing code is OK, you still want to test the original
expression even if you are predicting it is false, no?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 07:33:19PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> Found while looking at __ISO_C_VISIBLE. I'm not sure which compilers
> would be
Found while looking at __ISO_C_VISIBLE. I'm not sure which compilers
would be affected. The fallback could simply be
#define __predict_true(exp)(exp)
#define __predict_false(exp) (exp)
but I settled for a minimal change.
ok?
Index: cdefs.h
