Ted Unangst wrote:
> Michael McConville wrote:
> > Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > Michael McConville wrote:
> > > > We have a pretty strong guarantee that it can only happen once
> > > > per process...
> > >
> > > I don't think this really matters. What does it do to the
> > > assmembly, and how does
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael McConville wrote:
> We have a pretty strong guarantee that it can only happen once per
> process...
...
> --- sys/sys/syscall_mi.h9 Oct 2015 01:17:18 - 1.11
> +++ sys/sys/syscall_mi.h26 Oct 2015 15:13:44 -
>
Ted Unangst wrote:
> Michael McConville wrote:
> > We have a pretty strong guarantee that it can only happen once per
> > process...
>
> I don't think this really matters. What does it do to the assmembly,
> and how does that make things faster?
It lets the compiler know that the body is very
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael McConville wrote:
> > We have a pretty strong guarantee that it can only happen once per
> > process...
> ...
> > --- sys/sys/syscall_mi.h9 Oct 2015 01:17:18 - 1.11
> > +++ sys/sys/syscall_mi.h26 Oct 2015
Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Michael McConville wrote:
> > We have a pretty strong guarantee that it can only happen once per
> > process...
> ...
> > --- sys/sys/syscall_mi.h9 Oct 2015 01:17:18 - 1.11
> > +++ sys/sys/syscall_mi.h
> Not sure how people feel about these annotations. This is a pretty
> classic use case, though.
No, the classic case is when the condition is a single variable, rather
than a condition "always true && rarely true".
Michael McConville wrote:
> Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Michael McConville wrote:
> > > We have a pretty strong guarantee that it can only happen once per
> > > process...
> >
> > I don't think this really matters. What does it do to the assmembly,
> > and how does that make things faster?
>
> It